State v. Troell
Decision Date | 11 December 1918 |
Docket Number | (No. 6101.) |
Citation | 207 S.W. 610 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. MILLER et al. v. TROELL et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Atascosa County; Covey C. Thomas, Judge.
Suit in nature of quo warranto by the State, on relation of J. D. Miller and others, against Charles T. Troell and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
T. P. Morris, of Floresville, W. W. Walling, of San Antonio, and J. D. Dodson, of Laredo, for appellants.
Dibrell & Mosheim, of Seguin, and F. H. Burmeister, of Jourdanton, for appellees.
This is a suit in the nature of a quo warranto by the state of Texas, upon the relation of residents and property owners within the territory embraced in the town of Pleasanton, to test the legal existence of Pleasanton as a municipal corporation. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. The judgment was in favor of the defendants in the trial court, holding that Pleasanton was legally incorporated.
The issues made by the pleadings and testimony may be fairly stated as follows: Based upon the petition of proper signers in compliance with statutory requirements, the county judge of Atascosa county, upon proof, found that there was the required population and ordered an election to determine the question of incorporation. An order was made May 30, 1916, and designated June 10, 1916, as the date of the election. The officer was selected for holding the election and notice published. The election was not held on June 10, 1916, because temporarily enjoined by the district court. The temporary injunction was dissolved November 24, 1916, after which, on the same day, the county judge signed the following document:
Notice of the above was given by posting same on November 24th. The election was held the following day, November 25th. In addition to the foregoing, the undisputed testimony shows that the qualified voters in the territory had actual notice of the election in time to vote, and that 102 of the 115 qualified voters participated in the election by casting their ballots in favor of the incorporation. The promoters of the incorporation of Pleasanton desired to hold the election prior to an election to incorporate North Pleasanton, as a portion of the territory was embraced in the petitions for both...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nueces County Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 4 v. State ex rel. Wilson, 12675
...Had all other eligible persons voted, it could not possibly have changed the result. This case is controlled by State ex rel. Miller v. Troell, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W. 610, by this Court. In that case this Court decided that an irregularity, if harmless, in the creation of a municipal corpor......
-
Cunningham v. State
...so that the result of the election was not affected by the failure to give notice in the manner prescribed by law. See State v. Troell (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 610 and authorities cited; Norman v. Thompson, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 537, 72 S. W. 64; Hill v. Smithville Independent School District......
-
Williams v. Glover
...Pac. 958, 959-961, 58 Am. St. Rep. 39; In re Cleveland, 52 N. J. Law, 188, 19 Atl. 17, 20 Atl. 317, 7 L. R. A. 431, 435; State v. Troell (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 610 (writ refused); 9 R. C. L. pp. 991, 992, § 14; 20 C. J. p. 97, § There is no material conflict in the evidence nor is there......
-
McComb v. Dutton
...Irwin v. Lowe, 89 Ind. 540; School District v. Garvey, 80 Ky. 159; Hubbard vs. Brainard, 35 Conn. 563; State v. Troell (Tex. Civ. App.), 207 S.W. 610, 612. In discussing the question of calling public meetings for the purpose of voting upon the levy of a tax, Mr. Cooley in his work on taxat......