State v. City of Waxahachie

• Decision Date: 13 October 1891
• Citation: 17 S.W. 348
• Parties: STATE v. CITY OF WAXAHACHIE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 348

17 S.W. 348

STATE v. CITY OF WAXAHACHIE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

October 13, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Ellis county; C. F. TUCKER, Judge.

Suit by the state of Texas against the city of Waxahachie to annul an ordinance annexing to the city certain territory. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

F. M. Maxwell and Watts, Eldredge & Eckford, for the State. G. C. Groce and M. B. Templeton, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

This suit was brought to annul an ordinance of the city council of the city of Waxahachie annexing to the city territory adjoining it upon its east, north, and west sides. The city had accepted the provisions of title 17 of the Revised Statutes. The following map of the old town and the addition was exhibited:

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

The city engineer testified substantially as follows: "The map shown me is a correct map of the line of the old town and of the annexed territory. I made the map. The (dotted) lines show the boundaries of the annexed territory, and the interior lines show the boundaries of the old town. The annexed territory is a half mile wide on the east side of the old town, and a half mile wide on the north side. On the west side it is in irregular shape. The north and west sides are connected by a strip three hundred and seventy feet wide. From the north-east corner of the old town to the north-east corner of the annexed territory is a distance of thirteen hundred and forty-three varas. The old town is about square, and the east and north annexed strips, being a half mile wide, throw the north-east corner more than a half mile from any part of the old town." There was evidence that about nineteen-twentieths of the territory added consisted of agricultural land occupied as rural homesteads by owners who were opposed to the annexation. It was proved that the territory on the west side of the town that was annexed was occupied by a separate and distinct community from those who resided upon the part of the annexed territory that is situated on the north and east of the town, and that there were 20 voters residing on the west addition, of whom only 2 voted for or were in favor of the annexation. There were not more than 75 lawfully qualified voters residing in the annexed territory. The voters indicated their consent to the addition of the territory by signing a paper reading as follows, and containing also a description of the territory, which is here omitted: "The state of Texas, county of Ellis. We, the undersigned inhabitants of the territory herein described, adjoining the limits of the city of Waxahachie, state of Texas, and duly qualified to vote for members of the state legislature, hereby cast our votes in favor of becoming a part of said city of Waxahachie, said above-named territory being described as follows: [Here follows a description of the added territory.]" There were 53 signatures attached to the paper. An affidavit of 6 persons was presented to the city council to the effect that a majority of the qualified voters of the added territory involving the affiants had voted in favor of annexing said territory to the city. Upon this evidence the city council acted and passed an ordinance declaring that said territory "be, and the same is hereby, received as a part of said city of Waxahachie." It appears that the signatures to the paper were obtained on the same day that the ordinance was passed, at a called session of the city council, and it is evidenced that the proceedings were intended to be kept secret from a number, if not all, of the influential property holders, who were known to be opposed to the movement, and upon whose relation this suit was brought. The cause was tried without a jury, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the city. For the plaintiff the following propositions were contended for in the court below, and are now urged here: "First, that there was no...