State ex rel. City of Azle v. City of Sanctuary, 17193
| Decision Date | 23 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 17193,17193 |
| Citation | 467 S.W.2d 211 |
| Parties | STATE of Texas ex rel. CITY OF AZLE, Appellants, v. CITY OF SANCTUARY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Alex Tandy, County Atty., Parker County, Weatherford, George C. Thompson, Jr., City Atty., City of Azle, Fort Worth, and Wynn, Irby, Brown, McConnico & Mack, and John Randolph Thompson, Jr., Fort Worth (this firm on appeal only), for appellants .
Fulgham, Grogan & Vick, Weatherford; Rattikin & Honts, Owens & Fortney, and Richard Owens, Fort Worth, for appellee.
This is a quo warranto proceeding filed by the State of Texas, as plaintiff, on the relation of appellant, City of Azle, Texas, attacking the validity of the incorporation of appellee, City of Sanctuary, as a municipality. Both Azle and Sanctuary are in Parker County.
The case was tried to a jury. It found (1) that the purported incorporation of the City of Sanctuary on May 3, 1969, included land area in its incorporation which was located within one-half mile of the then existing city limits of Azle, Parker County, Texas; and (2) that ten (10) days public notice was not given before the election being held for the incorporation of the City of Sanctuary.
After such verdict had been received and filed the court granted the defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and decreed that plaintiffs take nothing by this lawsuit. From that judgment this appeal has been perfected.
The State of Texas did not participate in the trial and has not filed a brief in the cause on this appeal.
We affirm.
The failure of the incorporators of the City of Sanctuary to obtain consent from the City of Azle for the incorporation of Sanctuary is the primary basis relied upon by Azle in its efforts to invalidate and set aside the incorporation of Sanctuary.
Section 8, subd. A of Article 970a, Veron's Ann.Civ.St., The Municipal Annexation Act, provides that, 'No city may be incorporated within the area of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of any city without the written consent of the governing body of such city.' Section 2, subd. C of the Act provides that, "Written consent' means consent expressed by an ordinance or resolution.'
It is undisputed that the City of Sanctuary did not make any request of Azle for its consent and that Azle did not consent by ordinance or resolution to the incorporation of Sanctuary.
In oder to prevail in this cause it was essential for Azle to establish that it was a city under Art. 970a, The Municipal Annexation Act, Section 2, subd. A,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Kimmons v. City of Azle, 18133
...State erroneously lies in its interpretation of the former opinion of this court in State ex rel. City of Azle v. City of Sanctuary, 467 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1971, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Interestingly, the State committed itself in that case upon the relation of the City of Az......
-
City of Azle v. Martin, B--2994
...to the Attorney General, and he refused to approve them upon the grounds that the recent decision in City of Azle v. City of Sanctuary, 467 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.Civ.App.1971, writ ref. n.r.e.) holds that Azle is not a lawfully incorporated Azle and the Attorney General have made stipulations abo......