Tarrant County Water C. and Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. Pollard

• Decision Date: 02 January 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 993-5154.)
• Citation: Tarrant County Water C. and Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. Pollard, 12 S.W.2d 137, 118 Tex. 138 (Tex. 1929)
• Parties: TARRANT COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 v. POLLARD, Atty. Gen.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

12 S.W.2d 137

TARRANT COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 v.POLLARD, Atty. Gen.

(No. 993-5154.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

January 2, 1929.

Petition for mandamus in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 to require Claude Pollard, Attorney General, to approve petitioner's bonds and certify them to Comptroller for registration. Mandamus awarded.

Sidney L. Samuels and Ireland Hampton, both of Fort Worth, for relator.

Claude Pollard, Atty. Gen., and D. L. Whitehurst, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SHORT, P. J.

The Supreme Court, having granted the Tarrant county water control and improvement district No. 1 permission to file its petition for a writ of mandamus to issue to the Attorney General, the Honorable Claude Pollard, requiring him to approve certain of its bonds and to certify the same to the comptroller for registration, and the Attorney General having waived the issuance of notice of the filing of said motion and having filed his answer thereto, upon a hearing before Section B of the Commission of Appeals, to which the matter was referred upon a consideration thereof, we have reached the conclusion that the law of the case is with the petitioner, under the pleadings on file.

The petitioner, in support of its motion, says it is a governmental agency, body politic and corporate, with lawful authority to issue bonds in the amount stated therein, the approval and certification of which are sought and to which it is entitled by reason of allegations to the effect that each and every requirement of the law, by virtue of which it has the authority to issue the bonds, has been followed; the particular acts required by the law being stated under oath, and a duplicate of the transcript of the bond record presented to the Attorney General being also attached to the motion.

It is alleged that petitioner was created and established as a water improvement district by an election held on October 7, 1924, by virtue of the provisions of chapter 87 of the Acts of the Thirty-Fifth Legislature and the several amendments thereto, enacted prior to the date of the election, by virtue of the result of which petitioner was created and given the power authorized by section 59 of article 16 of the Constitution.

It is further alleged that petitioner, through the board of directors, did, on June 19, A. D. 1925, acting under the powers granted by section 143 of chapter 25 of an act of the Thirty-Ninth Legislature, adopt a resolution declaring such district to be a water control and improvement district, to be therefore controlled by said chapter 25, which resolution was entered upon the minutes of the district and notice of its adoption was duly published in conformity with the provisions of section 143; that in pursuance of a petition of 22 qualified voters of the district, protesting against the adoption of said resolution, in full compliance with the law, the question of confirmation of the conversion of the district was submitted to the qualified voters thereof, at an election held on January 12, 1926, at which a majority of said voters voted to confirm and approve said order for the conversion of said district, by reason whereof the said "Tarrant County Water Improvement DistrictNo. 1," on June 19, 1925, became "Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement DistrictNo. 1" and to be governed by the provisions of said chapter 25.

Petitioner further alleged certain acts excluding certain lands for certain reasons, the authority of which is given by section 42 of chapter 25 and the provisions of section 76 of said chapter, after hearings were granted and evidence presented concerning the benefits or absence of benefits to each particular block of property as well as concerning the exclusion or retention thereof, after which action excluding and retaining particular parcels of property, there remained 31,000 acres of rural valley land which could be relieved, as to floods, and for which provision could be made for irrigation by the works, as proposed to be constructed by the petitioner, exclusive of the entire city of Fort Worth, which was included in the boundary of the district.

It is alleged that "all acts and things requisite to the lawful creation of this district, the elimination of lands therefrom, the creation of obligations of the district and the levy of taxes within the district have been in all things, done in a manner valid and in conformity to the Constitution and applicable laws of the State of Texas."

The petitioner also alleged that while there were pending contests, seeking the exclusion of certain lands and attacking the validity and conversion of the district, the suits in which these contests were sought have been dismissed, none being on the docket of any court at the time the Act of the Fortieth Legislature, First Called Session (chapter 107), became effective, which act validated all things done by the district prior to the date said act became effective, and that said pending suits were inoperative as a bar to the validated act of the district, in accordance with the provision thereof.

It is also alleged by petitioner that after all petitions for the exclusion of land had been considered and final orders therein had been entered, the boundaries of the district were...