Case Name: CITY OF GALVESTON v. HEFFERNAN et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1941-11-05
Citations: 155 S.W.2d 912
Docket Number: No. 7838
Parties: CITY OF GALVESTON v. HEFFERNAN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 155
Pages: 912–912

Head Matter:
CITY OF GALVESTON v. HEFFERNAN et al.
No. 7838.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Nov. 5, 1941.
Bryan F. Williams, City Atty., and Frank B. Nussbaum, Asst. City Atty., both of Galveston, for plaintiff in error.
Thornton, Markwell & Stubbs, of Galveston, for defendant in error.
W. Ray Scruggs, Allen, Helm & Jacobs, and Wm. States Jacobs, all of Houston, and Obel McAlister, of Fort Worth, Amici Curiae.

Opinion:
CRITZ, Justice.
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, which is found in 146 S.W.2d 416, makes a complete statement of the facts and questions of law involved in this case. After a careful consideration of such opinion we have decided that it correctly disposes of the law questions involved in this appeal, and for correct reasons given. No good reason can be served by our further discussion of the law questions involved. We therefore approve the same.
We granted the writ of error in this case on the tentative belief that the opinion herein conflicts with the opinion of the Waco Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Lusk et al., Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 1110, writ refused. After a careful consideration of the two opinions we have reached the conclusion that they do not conflict in any way, but that both correctly announce the law. In the Lusk case, as shown by the opinion, the Lusks brought suit to enforce a contract made in direct violation of Articles 1569 and 1572, Texas Penal Code. The opinion simply holds that resort cannot be had to our courts to enforce contracts made in violation of our penal laws. This case involves no effort to enforce a contract denounced by our penal laws. It is simply an action to recover on a quantum meruit for overtime services'rendered by the firemen of the City of Galveston. This fully appears in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals.
The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.