Sykes v. Pandora Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 8165.)
• Citation: 14 S.W.2d 124
• Parties: SYKES et al. v. PANDORA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

14 S.W.2d 124

SYKES et al. v. PANDORA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al.

(No. 8165.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

January 16, 1929.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1929.

Appeal from District Court, Wilson County; W. O. Murray, Judge.

Action by C. Sykes and others against the Pandora Independent School District and others. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

R. R. Smith, of Jourdanton, for appellants.

S. B. Carr, of Floresville, for appellees.

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit filed by C. Sykes, G. Sykes, and Evans, against Pandora independent school district and its board of trustees, consisting of Terrell Irvin, J. H. Collins, L. L. Holstein, F. T. Magee, Fritz Kupatt, E. E. Irvin, and Tom Garner, seeking a judgment, declaring that a certain election held to authorize the issuance of certain bonds from which to realize a sum of money to erect a schoolhouse in said district was null and void, and, in the alternative, for an injunction to restrain the trustees from issuing and selling said bonds. The court sustained certain special exceptions to the petition, and, appellants failing to amend, the suit was dismissed.

We copy the purposes sought in the petition from the brief of appellants:

"(1) Of enjoining the issuance of certain school bonds of appellee school district (a) because of a lack of public necessity for the use of the funds to be raised by sale of the bonds, and (b) because of an abuse of discretion by the board in calling the election and of the participants in voting the bonds in the amount named ($22,000), and (c) because the issuance of the bonds and levying of the tax would constitute the taking of complainants' property in said district without due process of law;

"(2) Of contesting the validity of the election itself because of a lack of proper notice in the matter of time of giving and of an insufficiency of the petition, order of election and notice of election in the matter of form and substance; and,

"(3) To enjoin the carrying out of a contract to sell the bonds made before they were issued or even approved by the attorney general."

The validity of the election was assailed on the grounds of the insufficiency of the petition, of insufficient notice, and because there was no public necessity for issuing the bonds and using the funds arising from their sale in the erection of a schoolhouse.

There are four assignments of error relied on by appellants, each presenting an error in the action of the court in sustaining certain special exceptions to the petition, and, in order to test the soundness of the assignments of error, we will analyze the articles of the statute relied upon to sustain the attacks made on the election. Subdivision 2, art. 2784, Revised Statutes of 1925, authorizes the purchase, construction, repair, or equipment of public free school buildings by independent districts, and the levy of a tax not exceeding 50 cents on the hundred dollars valuation, and specifies that such tax is "to be for the payment of the current interest on and provide a sinking fund sufficient to pay the principal of bonds which said districts are empowered to issue for such purposes." Subdivision 3 applies to a maintenance tax, and has no applicability to the tax sought to be levied in this case. Subdivision 4 requires the question of the issue of bonds to be authorized by a majority of the votes cast at an election held in the district for...