Case ID: sw2d_10/html/0216-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’QUINN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NOGUESS et al. v. BURTON et al.
    (No. 1756.)
    Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
    Oct. 4, 1928.
    Dies, Stephenson & Dies, of Orange, for appellants.
    W. E. Lea, of Orange, for appellees.
   O’QUINN, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting an injunction to restrain the holding of certain elections for school purposes. The suit for injunction was brought by appellees, Asa Noguess, Henry Hare, and Harry Bishop, as trustees of the MoLewis common school district No. 15, of Orange county, Tex., in which they were joined by W. W. Womack and several other legally qualified taxpaying voters and patrons of said school district.

The facts are that on December 18, 1922, the. county board of school trustees duly established and defined what was known as the McLewis common school district No. 15, containing 37.97 square miles of territory. Since that date the qualified voters of said district regularly elected trustees for said district, who have conducted the affairs of said district, including a school attended by an average of more than 20 scholastic children; the average for the'1927-1928 session being 60. Asa Noguess, Henry Hare, and Harry Bishop were, at the time of filing of this suit and now are, the duly elected and qualified trustees of said school district. On or about June 27, 1925, said district voted bonds in tbe sum of $10,000 for tbe purpose of building a seboolbouse, wbicb bonds were duly issued and are now outstanding obligations, of said district. Dissatisfaction arose in tbe district as to tbe location of tbe building to be erected, and in April, 1927, Hon. Y. H. Stark, district judge, issued a writ of mandamus to compel tbe building of said bouse on a certain designated site (tbis after all appeals to and final orders of tbe state board of education bad been bad, see Noguess v. Peveto [Tex. Civ. App.] 297 S. W. 1100), wbicb, upon appeal, was affirmed by tbis court July 2, 1927, and wbicb writ is still in force. On May 18, 1928, tbe county board of school trustees, composed of Miss Allie Bland, county superintendent of schools of said county, and J. D. Yates, feyron Smith, J. D. Peveto, Mrs. D. C. Bland, and. O. L. Armstrong, county school trustees of said county, entered an order redefining and changing the bounds of said Mc-¡Lewis common school district No. 15, by. .which a portion of said district was taken from said district and attached to tbe Little Cypress consolidated school district on one side, and a portion was taken from said district and attached to tbe West Orange independent school district on tbe other side, reducing tbe area of said original McLewis district from 37.97 square miles 'to 28.42 square miles. -On June 1, 1928, orders were issued by tbe county judge of Orange county for two elections to be held in tbe new or reduced McLewis common school district No. 15; on June 23,1928, one to determine whether tbe qualified voters of said McLewis district would vote $10,000 in bonds for tbe purpose of erecting and equipping a schoolhouse for said district, and tbe other to determine whether tbe qualified voters of said district would vote a tax to supplement tbe state school fund apportionment. John Burton was appointed as presiding judge of both elections, said elections to be held at the same time and place.

Tbe prayer of appellees asked an injunction perpetually restraining appellants from — •

(a) Holding tbe two elections in tbe new McLewis common school district No. 15;

(b) From dividing or reducing tbe original McLewis common school district No. 15 in any manner not prescribed by' law;

(c) From putting into effect or carrying out tbe order of tbe county board of school trustees of May 18, 1928, reducing tbe area. of said school district.

A temporary injunction granting all tbe relief asked was granted, and tbis appeal is from that order.

We think tbe injunction was .improperly granted. Tbe bolding of ,the elections would not themselves create any liability upon appellees, nor operate as any incumbrance upon their property, or in any way interfere with their property- rights, and therefore they could not have been harmed by permitting tbe elections to be held. League v. Brazoria County Road District No. 13 (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 1012 (writ refused); Temple Lumber Co. v. Commissioners’ Court Sabine County (Tex. Civ. App.) 239 S. W. 668; Richardson v. Mayes (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 549. If tbe changes made by tbe county board of school trustees in the school districts set out by appellees in their petition were without authority of law, then they were of no force and in a proper action could be attacked by appellees at any time when their rights were actually invaded. Parks v. West, 102 Tex. 11, 111 S. W. 726; Cohen v. Houston (Tex. Civ. App.) 176 S. W. 814; Richardson v. Mayes (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 546, 549; Robinson & Watson v. Wingate, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 65, 80 S. W. 1067, 1072 (writ refused, 98 Tex. 268, 83 S. W. 182). Besides, the elections which appellees sought to restrain were in their nature political matters and beyond the control of the courts. City of Dallas v. Street Railway Co., 105 Tex. 337, 148 S. W. 292; League v. Brazoria County Road District (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 1012 (writ refused); Temple Lumber Co. v. Commissioners’ Court (Tex. Civ. App.) 239 S. W. 668; Robinson & Watson v. Wingate, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 65, 80 S. W. 1067, 1072 (writ refused 98 Tex. 268, 83 S. W. 182).

It follows that the judgment should be reversed and the injunction dissolved, and it is accordingly so ordered.