Court Opinion

ID: 9832618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:03:28.832503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:49.596892
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have considered the motion for rehearing in this case, and carefully examined the recent decisions urged in support of the proposition that our conclusions as expressed in our original opinion are erroneous. The case of Derrett v. Britton, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 485, 80 S. W. 562, we think is distinguishable from the case before us, in that there it was alleged, and on demurrer taken as true, that sufficient funds to pay the debt involved was on hand, while in this case it was found, and the evidence undoubtedly tends to show, that no sufficient funds of the current year in which the debt was incurred was available or under the control of the commissioners’ court. It is to be noted also that the case of McNeill v. City of Waco, 89 Tex. 83, 33 S. W. 322, from which we quoted in our original opinion, is cited with approval. The same case was also cited with approval in the case of Austin Bros. v. Patton (Tex. Com. App.) 288 S. W. 182, now insistently urged. In this case, viz. Austin Bros. v. Patton, the court said that the warrants forming the basis of that suit were ambiguous, and necessarily promised payment, with one exception, out of the current funds. If as indicated, the warrants declared upon without ambiguity so provided, oral testimony, as the court held, would be inadmissible to show otherwise. The court said:
“The county has solemnly promised payment out of current funds for the year, then under its immediate control, in an amount not shown to have been beyond its right of reasonable expectation.”
It is evident that the case is not authority which requires us to reverse our former ruling. Without reviewing it, we think the other case of Clark & Courts v. San Jacinto Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 204, 45 S. W. 315, is also distinguishable from the case here.
Other contentions made in behalf of áp-pellant have also been examined, but we find nothing that we think would authorize us to grant the motion, and it is accordingly overruled.