State v. Merchant

• Decision Date: 04 February 1905
• Citation: 85 S.W. 483
• Parties: STATE ex rel. COUNTY ATTORNEY v. MERCHANT et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

85 S.W. 483

STATE ex rel. COUNTY ATTORNEY v. MERCHANT et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 4, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Hardin County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.

Suit in the nature of a quo warranto by the state, on the relation of the county attorney of Hardin county, against Ambrose Merchant and others, claiming to be the mayor and officers of the town of Sour Lake. From a judgment for defendants, relator appeals. Reversed.

R. L. Durham, Co. Atty., and Lanier, Martin & O'Fiel, for appellant. Teagle & Conley and R. H. Holland, for appellees.

GARRETT, C. J.

This was a suit in the nature of a quo warranto, brought September 23, 1904, by the state of Texas, on the relation of the county attorney of Hardin county, against Ambrose Merchant and others, claiming to be mayor and officers of the town of Sour Lake, and against said pretended corporation, to oust the said persons from acting as officers thereof, and to have the said corporation declared null and void. The case was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants sustaining the corporation. On this appeal by the state two questions are presented for decision: First, whether the proposition voted on was the one submitted to the county judge on the application of the residents; and, second, whether the territory included in the boundaries of the proposed town was all intended to be used for strictly town purposes. On application made to him by the requisite number of resident voters therein, describing by metes and bounds the south half of the Stephen Jackson league, the county judge of Hardin county ordered an election to determine whether said territory should be incorporated as the town of Sour Lake. A notice of the election was duly posted, but on the protest of the owners of a part of the land some of the promoters of the town determined to reduce the area of the territory one-half, and a description of the reduced area was written out and pasted over the description in the original notice. This was done on the next day after the original notice was put up, and in time for the full period required by law, but it was done without any order of the county judge, or any authority given by him, or any knowledge on his part of the proposed change. The election was held on January 2, 1904, in accordance with the order of the county judge directing the same, but the officers conducting the election did not allow any one to vote thereat except resident voters of the restricted area of 1,100 acres made subsequent to the application to the county judge by unauthorized parties as above stated, and said persons voted upon the incorporation of the restricted area. Returns of the election were made as required by law; and the county judge made an entry upon the records of the commissioners' court that the inhabitants of the town of Sour Lake were incorporated within certain boundaries defined in said order by metes and bounds lying within the area prescribed in the application and order, and being only about one-half thereof. An election ensued, which resulted in the choice of the defendants as the officers of the town. Prior to the discovery of oil in paying quantities at Sour Lake, it was a...