State v. City of Gladewater
| Decision Date | 11 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 5647.,5647. |
| Citation | 139 S.W.2d 283 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. WALKER et al. v. CITY OF GLADEWATER. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Gregg County; D. S. Meredith, Judge
Quo warranto proceeding by the State, on the relation of Mrs. E. L. Walker, a feme sole, and others, against the City of Gladewater, wherein plaintiff and relators challenged the act of the city in including relators' lands within an annexed area. From a judgment denying relief non obstante veredicto, the State and others appeal.
Reversed and rendered.
Wynne & Wynne, Fred Erisman, Henry H. Harbour, Philip Brin, and Ralph Prince, all of Longview, for appellants.
Hurst, Leak & Burke, of Longview, and Samuel C. Harris and B. M. Land, both of Gladewater, for appellee.
This is a quo warranto proceeding filed in March 1937 by the State of Texas, acting through the District Attorney of Gregg County, upon the relation of Mrs. E. L. Walker, a feme sole, W. H. York, and Leland Fikes, against the City of Gladewater, a municipal corporation organized under the general laws of the State, herein referred to as the City. The City, purporting to act under the provisions of Articles 965 and 974, R.C.S. of 1925, extended a part of its city limits 800 feet in width, annexing approximately 365 acres. In the map that follows, the solid line shows the boundary of the extended area; the dotted line the former boundary of the City; the x's the residences of the petitioners in the annexed area; and the shaded portion the lands of the relators.
This act of the City in including the lands of relators within the annexed area is challenged by plaintiff and relators as being arbitrary, illegal and void. The information alleged the land of relators to be swampy, subject to overflow, and wholly unfit for residential or ordinary business purposes; without streets, electric, water or sewerage lines; not within 1/2 mile of any inhabited part of the city. They alleged that none of relators' land needs or can receive any protection or benefits from the city government; that same is fit only for oil production and is wholly unsuitable for city purposes. They alleged that the city did not intend to use the land for city purposes, but sought to annex it solely for the purpose of collecting taxes on it. The city was charged with instigating the movement and with preparing and causing the petition for annexation to be circulated and signed. Subject to a plea in bar later herein discussed, the city answered with general and special exceptions, and a general and special denial. It pleaded that the provisions of Article 974 had been complied with and joined issue on the allegations that the property of relators was unfit for city purposes or that same had been annexed only for taxation purposes.
This land of relators is situated in the Sabine River bottoms, subject to overflow, in some places 8 to 10 feet deep. It is marshy, boggy, and swampy, filled with sloughs, seeps, ditches, and salt water drains and slush pits incidental to various oil producing wells scattered over the area. The evidence clearly reflects that the same is unfit for habitation. It is to be observed from the above map that not a person residing in the neighborhood of relators' land signed the petition. The petitioners lived on high ground in built-up areas with water and other utility connections and adjacent to state highways. The field notes of the area to be incorporated were surveyed out and prepared by the city engineer, who verified the field notes before a city official. The petition contained these field notes. The same city official took the affidavit of three signers of the petition. On December 23, 1936, at a recess meeting of the City Commission the petition was presented, ordered filed, and the rules of the City requiring ordinances to be read at more than one meeting were suspended and the ordinance was passed annexing this area to the City. Five years prior to the present annexation, the City extended the city limits to include an area on high ground North and Northwest of relators' land. During the five years the City has made no improvements on that area and in nowise utilized the same for city purposes. At the time of the annexation here involved one building was being remodeled but not a single building was under construction in the city. The city levied and collected a tax of $1.75 per $100 valuation and also an occupation tax varying from $25 to $50 per well against each producing oil well within the city limits. Various producing oil wells were situated upon the land of relators within the area sought to be annexed.
In response to special issues submitted, the jury found that the city did not intend to use the land of relators strictly for town purposes; and that their land was not capable of being used for town purposes within a reasonable time. Upon request, the court also filed findings of fact, namely: (1) That the property owned by relators was annexed to the city purely for taxation purposes; (2) that same was unsuitable for city purposes; (3) that the city did not intend to use same for city property within a reasonable time. The city did not in the trial below, nor does it here challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support each and all of the above findings. Article 974, here applicable, reads:
The area included in the extension did not exceed 1/2 mile in width. The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Portland General Elec. Co. v. City of Estacada
...and in violation of due process.' The following is copied from the words of the court: '* * * Thus, in State ex rel. Walker v. Gladewater, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 283, 286, the court held: 'To subject the properties of a people to the burden of a municipal government which will share none ......
-
Waterway Ranch, LLC v. City of Annetta
...Walker are included in the court of civil appeals's decision that the supreme court reversed. See State ex rel. Walker v. City of Gladewater, 139 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1940), rev'd,138 Tex. at 178, 157 S.W.2d at 643. 13. To its motion for new trial, appellant attached an a......
-
State ex rel. Bibb v. City of Reno
... ... 69, 147 N.W. 91 ... Even in ... states where public policy in favor of agriculture is not as ... strong as in Nevada, the courts construe the statutes to ... prevent arbitrary annexation of [64 Nev. 136] agricultural ... lands. Thus, in State ex rel. Walker v. Gladewater, ... Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 283, 286, the court held: ... 'To ... subject the properties of a people to the burden of a ... municipal government which will share none of its benefits is ... unjust, State v. Eidson, supra [76 Tex. 302, 13 S.W ... 263, 7 L.R.A. 733], and ... ...
-
State v. City of Sulphur Springs, 6405.
...to stay or prevent an attempted legal fraud. As expressed in the dissenting opinion and in effect by me in State v. City of Gladewater, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 283, 286: "It is hardly conceivable that the legislature, and the people in adopting the amendment in question, meant by the use o......