Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-05-23
j. T. Elliott Proceeds Against
the City.
GREAT INTEREST IN THE SUIT.
Oak Cliff Not City According 10 Judge Gaines,
Only Part of Dallas County.
A Judicial Decision that Gusts the Mayor
and Councilmen of Oak Clin.
City Ofnc Hold a General
Welfare Meeting.
INJUNCTION SUIT.


tain notes given by the city was called to-
day in Judge Burke's court.
The defense first submitted nine special
demurrers to the plaintiffs petitions:
Now come the defendants in the above
entitled cause and demur 10 plaintiffs Pc
tltion filed herein on the Sth day of May.
1891, and say that the same is insufficient in
law to entitle the plaintiffs to any relief, al
of which defendants pray judgment of the
court
And specially excepting to the plaintiffs
said petition defendants say:
l. That said petition shows no equities in
said plaintiffs sufficient to entltle them to
the writ of injunction therein prayed for.
=. That said petition shows that said
plaintiffs have no sufficient interest in the
matters therein complained about TO eutitle
them to bring this suit
3. That said petition shows that there are
other necessary parties TO this suit, to-wit:
The holder or holders of the notes, the pay
ment of which is sought to be enjoined, and
the Dallas guarantee and investment com
pany are the real parties at interest herein.
That said parties would not be in any way
affected by any decree rendered without
the court having acquired jurisdiction over
said parties would be null and of no effect.
4. Said petition does not negative the
fact that the defendant, the city of Dallas,
received goods to the full value OF the note,
the payment of which is sought TO be en-
joined, and does not offer to do equity to
the holder OF said note either by delivering
up the property for the value of which
SAID note is given, nor in any other man
ner.
.. Said petition fails to allege facts suffi-
cient TO show that said note is invalid or
was improperly given by the defendant. the
city of Dallas. 1t fails to show that there
was not sufficient current revenue in the
hands of said city of Dallas and sufficient
ND ahp 10
pay all the current and general expenses
Of said city general revenues from its taxes
and other sources to fully pay and satisfy
said note. principal and interest, and these
defendants say that if there were such gen
eral revenue in the hands of said city, if
said city'S current income was sufficient TO
pay said note that any special tax to pay
said note or to provide a sinking fund for
the payment of the same was not only uu-
necessary but such tax would be illegal
and void.
6. Defendants specially except to para
graphs I, S and of said petition because
the facts therein stated are stated simply
upon information and belief and because
said facts are totally immaterial to the
issues involved in this suit, are irrelevant
and incompetent to plead herein.
:. Defendants specially except to said
petition because the same not only fails to
make the holder of said note and the said
herein, fails to ask that said parties be
cited and said petition is framed in such a
manner as to prevent said parties from
being made parties defendant herein with.
the full rights Of defendants, but seek to
compel them if they make any proceeding
to protect their interest herein to become
intervenors herein and to be subjected to
the Inconvenience.
s. Said petition fails to show by positive
averments that these defendants or said
city of Dallas are about to pay the note
therein sought to be enioined. and fails to
show by positive averments that any ire
parable or any injury whatever is about 10
result to or be inflicted upon plaintiffs OF
their property.
g. The allegations of said petition show
that if any Judgment or decree is rendered
III this suit III its existing condition without
the holder of said note and said Ripley &
Bronson being made parties thereto the
same will only involve the defendant, the
city of Dallas. in multiplicity of suits and
harrassing litigation and the costs incident
to such litigation. Wherefore defendants
pray judgment.
The arguments in the case were closed
this evening, but decision is not expected
before tomorrow. This is an important
case, and one that is being watched with a
great deal of interest.
OAK CLIFF NOT A CITY.
Word has been received here to-day OF
Judge Gaines opinion in what is known as
the Oak Cliff quo warranto case, which set
ties the fact that the Bluff City is no
longer a city, but Dallas county. The fol-
lowing are the main features of the opinion:
l. This is proceeding in the nature of q
quo warranto filed by the county attorney
of Dallas county to GUST respondents from
the offices of mayor and councilmen of the
alleged city of Oak Cliff on the ground that
it has never been legally Incorporated in
tlnt +Ia nr,fa pf ale
braces large scope of country which is
rural in its character and is no part of the
city proper. The information alleges that
a large portion of the territory sought to be
embraced in the city limits is occupied by
people engaged exclusively in agricultural
pursuits, and by pastures and unoccupled
lands, etc.
. The facts, in the opinion of the court,
bring the case within the principles which
were announced in the case of State VS..
Edison, 75 Texas, 500. and in that case it
was held that the statute which authorized
towns and villages to incorporate for school
purposes only, did not authorize them 10
include in such interpretations adjacent ter
ritory inhabited solely by rural popula-
ton. For a much stronger reason they
cannot embrace territory not inhabited
at all.
3. The manner of incorporating towns
and villages for school purposes and for in
municipal purposes are precisely the same,
and if a town is not authorized to embrace
within the limits of its corporation for
school purposes must conflne itself to its
actual boundaries. Cities and towns are al
lowed to incorporate themselves, but not
also the adjacent territory not part of the
same containing rural population or unin-
habited.
4. As we construe the law, no power has
been granted to cities and towns empower
ing them to embrace territory lying beyond
their actual limits, and these being the
boundaries are not to be determined by the
legislature, but by the court.
5. There is no provision in the statute as
to fixing the boundaries of town which
would make the action of the county judge |
in ordering the action conclusive of the |
question.
6. 1t was unnecessary to make the city of |
Oak Cliff a party to the suit. because the |
action is based on the fact that corporation |
has in fact been created.
:. There is but little conflict in the test
mony, which we think sustains the judg-
ment below and same is affirmed. |
FOR THE GENERAL GOOD.
A number of prominent and progressive |
DallasiteS held an important meeting to- |
day at Mayor Connor's office to talk over |
matters for the general good of the city of |
Dallas. New enterprises and new meth |
DDS were talked of. Among others the |
idea Of having summer entertainments Of |