Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-04-28
THE eAzETTE. FORT WORTH TExAs SUNDAY APRIL as 1895

a part of the costs for which tho clerk
of the court of civil appeals is to issue
execution This is in accordance with
sound principle. As soon as an appeal
is perfected the jurisdiction of the court
OF appeals attaches and the cost OF the
transcript Is not only costs accruing
upon the appeal, but also cos.s OF the
proceedings In the appellate court. Mo-
tion granted. Opinion by Gainea, c. }.
Sun vapor Street Light company VS..
]. r. Kenau. county judge, ct al-Cer-
titled questions from Second district:
In July, 1890 the city of Seymour was
duly Incorporated, all the forms of law
being complied with. The city acted
as corporation until May 3. 1892, when
II was dissolved by proceedings Ia quo
wnrranto. because 1t had included
farming and pasture lands beyond the
limits OF a town. At It's dissolution
1t was indebted to the light company
in the sum OF $500 upon contract
made with the mayor, who was author
lied to make It by an order OF the cOun-
ell. Large sums were due the corpora
ton from Its officers. The company
presented It's claim to the county COM
missloners' court with an application
FOR the court to take charge of the
property and EFFECTS OF the city and
" fAhN tut lnl hAlt pay AANlAA VI AlAt hNNN
due the company by collecting all
money due the city and by providing
for the levy and collection Of tax
upon property within the limits OF the
city sufficient to discharge the debt.
The commissioners court refused and
a suit was brought 10 compel them TO
act. The plaintiff relies upon the fact
OF April IL, 1891, amending article 5il
Revised Statutes. The following ques-
lions are certified!
l. Is the act constitutional In that
feature which provides that the prop
erty of any defacto corporation which
has been declared void, or which has
ceased to operate and exercise the
functions pertaining thereto, shall be
turned over to the county treasurer and
requires the commissioners court to
provide for its sale for the settlement
of the debts due by the corporation?
This court is OF opinion that the COM
missioners' court OF county can not
be required to provide for the sale OF
the property of supposed corporation
the charter of which has been de-
clared void and for the disposition OF
the same for the settlement of the
debt. The constitution provides that
such courts shall exercise such pow
ers and jurisdiction over all county
business rs Is conferred by the constl-
tution and the laws of the state. or as
may ht uNNfuAltl IAhNlAfNt ~ ne pow
ers which the legislature may require
them to exercise are confined to county
business, and Il IL clear that the ad-
ministratlon of the effects OF q dis
solved corporation and the payment Of
Its debts are not such business. Per
sons who have conveyed property TO
an ostensible corporation are not In
n position to plead its illegallty as
against it's creditors. The latter, when
It's organization has by due course OF
law been aunulled, have n superior
natural right to so much Of the prop
erty acquired in its name as may he.
necessary to satisfy It's demands.
Therefore there would seem to exist no
constitutional impeachment which would
prevent the legislature from providing
method by which such creditors may
enforce their right, The difficulty arises
when the attempt Is made to impose
the administration Of the assets upon
the county commissioners as n court
and to compel them to perform IT,
Whether II they should voluntarily act
their action would he legal Is qucs-
tion this court Is not 60 determine
They may have the power TO do an act
which II Is not their legal duty to per-
form. Brown VS., Wheelock, 10 Tex,
$3.50.
2. Is that part OF the act constltu-
tional which provides that the COM
HllSSlpnfiH court may levy TAX on
the inhabitants? II the sale and dis
trihutlon OF the assets is not n business
pertaining TO the county. neither IL the
levy Of tax for the payment Of tho
debts duty which may be dcvolved
upon the commissioners court M n
county business. In Ewing vs.. commits
sioners' court CS5 Tex G6O II was an
nounced that the legislature can not
by any method impose q tax upon the
people Of territory embraced within
tho limits OF an ostensible corporation
which has been iudicinlly declared
never to have been legally created for
the payment of the debts OF the sup
posd municipality The doctrine an
nounced NAV not have been necessary
to the decision Of the case but the rem
sons given in the opinion are conclusive
NJ the question. Tho language in
White We. Quanah C2s S. w, 1860 Is
merely an announcement NJ the de-
clRrationa Of tho statute. II was not
intended TO declare the statute valid.
az the question of it's constitutionallty
was not involved, and It's decision was
waived. The second question II an
swered IN the negative. opinion by
Gaines. C. ].