Case ID: sw_299/html/0398-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEDDY, J. OURETON, O. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MATLOCK v. DALLAS ARCADIA FRESHWATER SUPPLY DIST. NO. 1.
    (No. 828-4879.)
    Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.
    Nov. 9, 1927.
    Waters and water courses <@=0-182 — Statute providing for fresh-water supply districts held not authorized by constitutional provision for conservation and reclamation districts (Rev. St. 1925, art. 7881 et seq.; Const, art. IS, § 59).
    Acts 36th Leg. 2d Called Sess. (1919) c. 48 (Rev. St. 1925, art. 7881 et seq.; Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1922, arts. 5107 — 180 to 5107 — 266), relating to organization of freshwater supply districts, is net authorized by Const, art. 16, § 59, providing for creation of conservation and reclamation districts to conserve natural resources of state.
    Certified Questions from Court of Civil Appeals of Eifth Supreme Judicial District.
    Proceeding between G. A. Matlock and the Dallas Arcadia Fresh-Water Supply District No. 1. Judgment for the latter. On certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals.
    Question answered.
    J. J. Fagan, of Dallas, for appellant.
    John II. Awtry, of Dallas, for appellee.
   LEDDY, J.

This is a certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth District. The facts stated in the certificate and the question submitted are as follows:

“That appellee is a corporate body as alleged, organized under the laws of Texas (chapter 4, tit. 128, Revised Civil Statutes 1925; chapter 48, Acts Thirty-Sixth Legislature, Second Called Session [1919] p. 107), as follows: ‘For the purpose of conserving, transporting, and distributing fresh water from lakes, pools, reservoirs, wells, springs, creeks, and rivers for domestic and commercial purposes.’ That there had been assessed taxes by appellee for the years sued for on said lots 8 and 9, which, together with penalties and interest, amounted at the time judgment was rendered, to wit, August 4,1926, to the sum o-f $16.46. That appellant is now and was then the owner of said lots at the time the taxes sued for were assessed against him as such owners.
“Question.
“Is the Act of the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, e. 4S, Second Called Session (1919) p. 107, now chapter 4, tit. 128, R. C. S. 1925, providing for creation of conservation districts, to be known as fresh-water supply districts, constitutional, in that said act was authorized by section 59, art. 16, of the Constitution of thi^s state?”

At the time the above question was certified the constitutionality of the act in question had not been passed upon by the Supreme Court. Since that time the Supreme Court, in the ease of State ex rel. Merriman et al. v. Ball et al., 296 S. W. 1085, held that the Acts Thirty-Sixth Legislature (1919), First and Second Called Sess. c. 48 (Yernon’s Ann. Civ. Stat. Supp. 1922, arts. 5107-t-ISO to 5107 — 266), relating to organization of freshwater supply districts on petition of landowning voters violative of the due process clauses of state and federal Constitutions (Const. TJ. S. Amend. 14, § 1; Const. Tex. art. 1, § 19) for failure to provide for a hearing of the property owners on the question of boundaries of the districts and of benefits to lands included therein.

We therefore recommend that the question certified be answered in the negative.

OURETON, O. J.

The opinion of the Commission of Appeals answering the certified question is adopted and ordered certified. 
      &wkey;For Othfcr cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBEB. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes