Case Name: DALLAS COUNTY BOIS D'ARC ISLAND LEVEE DIST. v. GLENN
Court: Texas Commission of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-11-17
Citations: 288 S.W. 165
Docket Number: No. 689-4599
Parties: DALLAS COUNTY BOIS D’ARC ISLAND LEVEE DIST. v. GLENN.
Judges: CURETON, C. J. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of the district court affirmed.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 288
Pages: 165–168

Head Matter:
DALLAS COUNTY BOIS D’ARC ISLAND LEVEE DIST. v. GLENN.
(No. 689-4599.)
(Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.
Nov. 17, 1926.)
.Gorce, Odell & Allen,- of Fort Worth, and Orane & Crane and W. P Dumas, all of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Spence, Haven & Smithdeal and Stroud & Lucas and M. O. Glenn, all of Dallas, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
POWELL, P. J.
The final opinion of the majority of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case is reported in 282 S. W. 339. The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Jones of that court is reported in the same volume, page 346. The latter opinion correctly states the law governing this case and does so in so clear and able a- manner that we see no necessity for writing anything further ourselves. We merely refer to his opinion as an expres sion of our views and the reasons which impel us to recommend the judgment hereafter outlined.
As shown by Chief Justice Jones, this case has heretofore been before our court. We answered certified questions, and our opinion, written by Judge Stay ton, was adopted by the Supreme Court. See 114 Tex. 825, 268 S. W. 452. As we there held, this attack on the judgment of the board of appraisers of this levee district is essentially a collateral one. That being true, it is equally clear to us that the judgment is not subject to an attack of that character. Chief Justice Jones states the reason for this conclusion.
We recommend, in line with the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Jones, that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals be reversed and that of the district court affirmed.
CURETON, C. J. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of the district court affirmed.