State v. Wofford

• Decision Date: 29 March 1897
• Citation: 39 S.W. 921
• Parties: STATE ex rel. AVERITT et al. v. WOFFORD et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

39 S.W. 921

STATE ex rel. AVERITT et al. v. WOFFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 29, 1897.

Certified questions from court of civil appeals of Fifth supreme judicial district.

Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of James Averitt and another, against J. B. Wofford and others. Heard on questions certified by court of civil appeals for Fifth supreme judicial district.

D. A. Nunn, Dist. Atty., and Richardson, Watkins & Miller, for appellants. Faulk & Faulk, for appellees.

GAINES, C. J.

The following statement and questions have been certified to us by the court of civil appeals for the Fifth supreme judicial district: "In 1850, one hundred and sixty acres of land was donated to the county of Henderson for the purpose of establishing thereon the county seat. The 160 acres was in the form of a square, lying east and west by north and south, and the county commissioners' court of the county had it surveyed and platted into lots, blocks, streets, and alleys, and laid out and designated the same by names and numbers, and established thereon the town of Athens. A public square was laid off in the center of the tract, a courthouse erected in the center thereof, and the streets ran east and west by north and south. September 1, 1856, the said town of Athens was incorporated by special act of the legislature. The act declared the limits of the corporation to be `one-half mile each way, north, south, east, and west from the center of the public square.' October 19, 1866, a special act of the legislature was passed incorporating the said town of Athens. This act described the territory incorporated in these words: The `limits of said corporation shall extend to the present limits of said town, or one mile square.' Under each of these charters, town officials were selected and the municipal government carried on for a while. February 15, 1881, after due notice, an election was held for the purpose of incorporating the town under the general incorporation laws of the state. The territory thus sought to be incorporated was described as `one square mile, of which the court house in Athens shall be the center.' The proposition to thus incorporate was carried by the election, and officers were elected and the city government carried on and operated under the general incorporation act until 1883. Since 1883 no town government has been administered, no election and qualification of officers being had. In 1891, the citizens residing in the territory of four miles square, including the town of Athens, held an election for the purpose of incorporating such territory for school purposes only. The election, in so far as the procedure be concerned, was regular, and resulted in favor of the proposition to incorporate the said four miles square for school purposes only. Officers were regularly elected, qualified, and proceeded promptly to operate the new corporation. They took charge of the public's school interests in said territory, held elections to decide whether special taxes should be levied to supplement the state public school fund and build schoolhouses. These elections resulted in favor of the special taxes. They were levied and collected, bonds issued, schoolhouses built, teachers employed, and the public school interests were managed and controlled by them in all respects. Elections have been held regularly since, and the officers elected have continuously had charge and management of all public school matters in said territory, and have exclusively controlled same to the time of the institution of this suit, to wit, February, 1896." Question 1: "Was there any legal authority for incorporating for school purposes only the territory of four miles square, embracing the town of Athens, as was attempted in 1891, under the conditions hereinabove related?" Question 2: "Under the facts stated, has the state been guilty of such laches as to be precluded from questioning the legal existence of such school corporation by proceedings of quo warranto?"

The solution of the first question depends upon the determination of two others: (1) Was the town of Athens lawfully incorporated at the time of the attempt to incorporate for school purposes? And (2) if so, had the people of the territory embraced within the attempted school corporation the power, under the statutes, to incorporate for that purpose only?

We incline to the opinion that the town of Athens was duly incorporated by the special act of September 1, 1856. It would seem to be essential to the validity of an act incorporating a town or city the boundaries of which are not already shown by the aggregation of houses, or designated in some other mode, that the limits of the municipality should be in some manner defined. The description of the territory incorporated in the special act in question is not so clear as to put it beyond question. But, in construing an act of this character, the rule which governs the construction of statutes in general must be applied. It is the duty of the courts to ascertain, if possible, the intent of the legislature, and, when so ascertained, to give it effect. Mathematically, the description is incomplete. It merely fixes four points in the town boundaries, and does not expressly direct how the lines were to run which were to connect these points. But it was not meant that the town should be embraced within the circumference of a circle of which the middle point of the public square should be the center and one-half mile should be the radius; for in that case the designation of four points only in the boundary, every point of which would have been equidistant from the center, would have been absurd. Again, it was not intended that the four points designated should be connected by...