State ex rel. Ratcliff v. City of Hurst

• Decision Date: 25 September 1970
• Docket Number: No. 17126,17126
• Citation: 458 S.W.2d 696
• Parties: STATE of Texas ex rel. W. N. RATCLIFF et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF HURST, Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 696

458 S.W.2d 696

STATE of Texas ex rel. W. N. RATCLIFF et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF HURST, Texas, Appellee.

No. 17126.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Fort Worth.

Sept. 25, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1970.

Wilbur T. Knape, Dallas, for W. N. Ratcliff.

William D. Campbell, Fort Worth, for City of Southlake.

Tom Cave, Hurst, for appellee.

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

MASSEY, Chief Justice.

Our former opinion of June 26, 1970 is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor.

This suit began as an action against the City of Hurst by the State of Texas In quo warranto, the relator being W. N. Ratcliff. Both the Town of Colleyville and the City of Southlake intervened. The attack made by the suit and petitions in intervention were upon the legality of Hurst's annexation Ordinances Nos. 184 and 306.

Said Ordinance 184 purported to extend the city limits of Hurst toward the north and around to the west of the municipality of Bedford (which lay immediately north of the City of Hurst) and up to the west and past Colleyville (located immediately north of Bedford), then around and encompassing land lying to the north of Colleyville. The intention of the City of Hurst was that the northernmost boundary of the land annexed would be near to but a little south of the corporate limits of the City of Southlake, but in this respect it erred since the description of such land included portions of several areas which had been earlier annexed by Southlake. Of this, more later.

Date of Hurst Ordinance No. 184 may be taken as February 14, 1961.

Subsequently, as the result of a dispute between Hurst and Colleyville there was an agreed judgment entered as of May 29, 1963 which purported to effect a disannexation of a part of the area originally contemplated to be annexed under Ordinance No. 184.

Thereafter, on June 11, 1964, Hurst passed a disannexation ordinance which purported to effect a further and additional disannexation. Objective of the ordinance was to 'carve out of the middle' of the remaining area of land all except a 50-foot strip inside its perimeter.

As a result of this intended disannexation the northern boundary anticipated to be left remaining was a 50-foot strip of land which, when applied on the ground, would be found to run east and west across and overlapping area theretofore annexed by Southlake.

Subsequently, by Ordinance 306 of September 28, 1965, Hurst purportedly annexed by Section 'A' thereof an area of land lying immediately west of Colleyville. Such had been a portion of the area intended to have been disannexed pursuant to the Hurst-Colleyville agreed judgment entered on May 29, 1963. By Section 'B' of Ordinance No. 306 Hurst purportedly annexed a 50-foot strip of land surrounding an area of land immediately west of the northernmost part of the area originally intended to be annexed by its Ordinance No. 184 (and which Hurst believed had become encircled by the 50-foot strip as incorporated area pursuant to its disannexation ordinance passed June 11, 1964).

A rough diagram is inserted below to clarify the land surface situation, particularly as applied to the location of the land area purportedly annexed by Section 'A' of Hurst's Ordinance No. 306, and as applied to that portion of the 50-foot strip remaining of the area contemplated by Hurst's Ordinance No. 184 (after the disannexation pursuant to the agreed judgment of May 29, 1963), to be taken into consideration with other factual background information. This diagram shows only the eastermost portion of the 50-foot strip purportedly annexed by Section 'B' of Ordinance No. 306.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The diagram portrays the 50-foot strip of land which remained of the land described by Hurst's Ordinance No. 184, as amended by reason of the intended disannexation pursuant to the agreed judgment (and as altered by reason of the fact that said 50-foot strip in the northernmost line would be interrupted by land theretofore annexed by Southlake, at points marked A and B). We have marked a block of land by a 'cross-hatch' to show the form and location of the area intended to be annexed by Section 'A' of Hurst's Ordinance No. 306. Note the location of the municipalities of Colleyville and Bedford with the areas of adjacency of one municipality to the other and to Hurst proper, as well as to land and strip of land contemplated by Hurst's Ordinances Nos. 184 and Section 'A' of 306. Note the point of adjacency and contiguity of the 50-foot strip purportedly remaining of the land intended to be retained to Hurst. The adjacency of the 50-foot strip of land intended to be annexed under Section 'B' of Ordinance No. 306 to the 50-foot strip of land under Ordinance No. 184 is also shown.

Original passage of Hurst's Ordinance No. 184 on February 14, 1961 antedated dates material in the Municipal Annexation Act (Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St., Art. 970a). Therefore the City of Hurst, a municipality to which the provisions of said Act had application upon the effectiveness of the Act was not restricted thereby in respect to its Ordinance No. 184. However, the area annexed included (in its northern portion) land which had been theretofore annexed by the City of Southlake. For that reason it would initially appear that Ordinance No. 184 was void under the holdings in State ex rel. American Manufacturing Company of Texas v. City of Fort Worth, 314 S.W.2d 355 (Fort Worth Civ.App., 1958, no writ) and in City of...