Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-01

No. 80, A. L. Rombcrg appellant, vs..
j. G.. AiclIafen, tax collector, appellee.
Appeal from the district court Of Stone
wall county
STATEMENT.
This suit was brought 10 cniuin the
collection VI a school tax levied iu Stone
wall cututy There WIS tlM before
the court below without u jury upon nm
agreed statement of facts The assign
mcuts of error raise questions of law
only.
In August 1887, while Stoucwall
county was un unurrui2vd county and
attached 10 Jones county for judicial
purposes. an election WIS held la the
territory covered by Stoupwal county.
which IA school lax Of T. - cents ON the
500 worth of property wus voted, ian
pursuance Of the orders of the cOminis-
siDner's court of Jones county declaring
said entire territory TO he one school
district and providing for an election
therein 10 determine whether gnd tax
should be levied. The election was duly
held, the result declared and the tax
lowed, 10y the commissioners court of
Jones county. Therefore ON tile 2Sth
dny Of December lSSS Stumewuil county
was duly urgUuiHcd. aud in February
following the commissioners court of the
newly organized county created two
school districts ont of It's territory and
defined their limits und boundaries with
out first obtaining the viii of the un-
Jority Of che voters Of said districts
In March, 1852 said commissioners court
ordcrcl an election in school district No
], ut which a tax of 20 cents on the
SlW, worth Of property was voted:
whcrcupun the commissioners court de
! Clurcd the result of the election and
levied the tnN which appellant 10y this
SUIT sought 10 cujuin. The election was
ordered upon the petition of more than
twenty qualified property holding tax
paying voters of said district, for The
names of less than twenty of them, to
vat, nineteen only appeared upon the
last assessment roll of The county.
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
First The first contention of appellant
! is, that. the court erred I'm holding that
! Jones county had no authority 10 create
! the uuorCnniEcd county of StOuewall a
! school district and order an election
! therein for the purpose of voting a school
! tax. The constitution. urticlc Z, section
| y. authorizes the legislature 10 provide
! for the formation Of school districts ,yifh-
IN all or amy of the counties of This
| state. In pursuance OF the provision of
| the constitution, article 1871 of the re-
Nlscd stututcS makes Il the duty of the
| county cOumissUBer3' court of all cOun-
! ties not exempted from that section of
| respective counties into convenient school
| districts Article ., section l. Of the
| constitution provides that territory exte-
ror TO existing counties may be divided
into counties in advance of population and
attached for judicial aud land surveying
| and owned by nOn-rcsldents of unorganiz-
eel county or counties Section II of
this article provides that lands lying I'm
and owned by uon-resideuts of uorlraIiiz.
ed counties shalt he assessed and taxes
thereon collected az the office OF The
comptroller Stonewall county never was
any part OF the territory of Jones county.
cur conclusion ~. that the commissioners
court OF Jones county had no authority
undcr the constitution aud laws of his
state 20 declare the uuorgunizcd county
Of StOnowull a school district and thot
the proceedings which resulted i'm tbe
| levy OF the IL L. cent school tax by TIM
commissioners of Jones comfy var.
void. Appellants second contention tbat
there was error in holding tlat the orpani.
| z0tlon of Stonewall county mnda Void
the election previously held under tbe
oruer OF the commissioners CONT ~
Jones county is therefore rendered immg-
teum and must he delied
Second, The issue raised by the third
assignment Of error is. that though mo
petition OF The election ordered by tLe
commissioners court of Stoneyou 4ss.,., :
may have been s@l@.l --tI--~T MONTY M.
m0rS 2StsSJr 1fOpprty holding tny my
ing voters residing IN the district tIc
rlc'uoh was, nevertheless, void herause
less than twenty of these names ,yore
SHOWN by the last assessment roll ~
me county Article 3i33 OF the revised
sthtulot, which provides for orlerin,,
such uh election upon the petition ~
lWehF OF more qualified PROPERTY hold.
nS' EA paying voters, does NOT reoili,,,
lhAl theW naiues should appear upon tbe
us essmeiN rolls. Article 3133 however
Nlhth states tile qualification of ina
Nelcte az the election aud not of ,be
pSt'uohers Tor the election, declares thar
Au Wrsehs Who are legally malifed
aWHiN o' the state and county Of their
tNs"lNl'e' ana who are resident pplprrty
tne l4st assessment ron of the cotnt,s
slull be entitled To vote. atc. lge cong,,
tution, article T. section g. prescri,o
ne same qualifications without ~
pnNse as shown by the last assessment
ron OF the county" This phrase n aisn
, omitted IA the next Succeeding article nj
she statute, which prescrihes the proof ~
ne made al the requisite qualification IN,
y party WlNe vote has been chnlln,te.,.
/, We conclude that tho statute ms 49,
heee the assessment roll the py,l,siN
evidence OF the qualification OF tbe No.
3 ohers and that the petition in tbis 49,
Nas sufficient predicate for ortarin,
The election N'NS'iNA
d thifd- The fourth assignment re,as i.
l1lnWs' ihe court erred in ls G,'1it.
Jaw Wherein be- finds that ~. i.a.'
A., y Nehool taxes ~ precinct No. I Il ,niiis
Ne'1l propositions are submitted nfIa,
I inls Ns9gnment an of which nre aie,,,'
y NIftl d