State v. Baker, 5720.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 5720.,5720. |
| Citation | 40 S.W.2d 41 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. GEORGE et al. v. BAKER et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
L. J. Polk, of Pharr, and George P. Brown and Oliver C. Aldrich, both of Edinburg, for plaintiffs in error.
Davenport, West & Ransome, of Brownsville, and Strickland & Ewers, of Mission, for defendants in error.
This is an action of quo warranto by the state of Texas, acting through the district attorney for the Seventy-Ninth judicial district of Texas, on relation of William George et al., trustees of common school district No. 18 of Hidalgo county, Tex., against Ed Couch independent school district of said county, and E. B. Baker et al., its trustees, to determine the validity of the incorporation of the independent district, and the right of its trustees to exercise their function as such. It appears that a very large part of the territory of the common school district is also embraced within the boundaries of the independent district.
It appears from the record and the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that on the 3d day of January, 1928, the county judge of Hidalgo county, Tex., ordered an election to be held in common school district No. 16 of such county to determine whether such common school district should be incorporated as independent school district and designated as Ed Couch independent school district in conformity with article 2757, R. C. S. of Texas, 1925, as amended by chapter 238, p. 353, Acts Regular Session 40th Legislature, 1927 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 2757). It seems to be conceded that the statute above named was fully complied with in ordering such election.
It seems further that, after said election had been ordered and due notice thereof given in conformity with law, and two days before said election was to have been held, the county board of trustees of Hidalgo county ordered a redistricting of common school district No. 16, by which certain portions of the latter were cut off into adjacent common school districts Nos. 2 and 18.
The election was held on the date ordered and resulted in favor of incorporation. The county judge refused to canvass the returns and declare the result until he had been mandamused so to do. Cameron, County Judge, v. Baker (Tex. Civ. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 119. After canvassing the returns the county judge entered an order declaring the district incorporated as an independent school district. Also at the same election E. B. Baker et al. were elected trustees of the independent district. This result was also declared by the county judge at the same time he declared the district incorporated.
After the declaration of the result of such election this suit was filed to test the validity of the independent district, and the right of its duly elected trustees to function as such. Trial in the district court resulted in a judgment declaring the independent district invalid. This judgment was reversed and rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals. 26 S.W. (2d) 324.
To our minds this suit presents but one question: Did the county board of trustees have the power to defeat the right of the people to, by vote, determine the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sch. Dist. of Birmingham v. Sch. Dist. No. 2, Fractional, of Bloomfield Tp. & Bloomfield Hills
...181 Ill. 315, 54 N.E. 839. These cases involved municipalities. The same principle is applied to school districts. State ex rel. George, v. Baker, 120 Tex. 307, 40 S.W.2d 41;Independent District of Shelton v. Board of Supervisors of Sioux County, 51 Iowa 658, 2 N.W. 590;Trumbull County Boar......
-
Cook v. Neill
...of without interference from the other tribunal. The Court cited: Cleveland v. Ward, 116 Tex. 1, 285 S.W. 1063; State ex rel. George v. Baker, 120 Tex. 307, 40 S.W.2d 41; Garrett, County Judge, v. Unity Common School Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d 238; Wichita Common School Dist. No. 11 v.......
-
Beyer v. Templeton
...even though incorporation proceedings were completed before annexation proceedings were completed." Also, see State of Texas ex rel. George v. Baker, 120 Tex. 307, 40 S.W.2d 41. However, if it cannot be correctly said that the City of Dallas obtained jurisdiction over the territory for anne......
-
Beyer v. Templeton
...jurisdiction cannot be defeated thereafter by the adverse party's subsequently attempting to exercise jurisdiction. State ex rel. George. v. Baker, 120 Tex. 307, 40 S.W.2d 41; State ex rel. Binz v. City of San Antonio, Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 551, writ of error refused; City of Houston v. ......