Court Opinion

ID: 9829400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:16:53.439157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:00.798230
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted the conclusion we reached on original hearing, that plaintiff failed to show lawful authority to maintain this suit in that it does not appear that he will sustain any financial loss as a result of the transfer of $75,000 from the water fund to the general tax fund of the city, is in conflict with*the decisions in South Texas Public Service Co. v. Jahn (Tex.Civ.App.) 7 S.W.(2d) 942, 943; City of Austin v. McCall, 95 Tex. 565, 68 S.W. 791; Terrell v. Middleton (Tex.Civ.App.) 187 S.W. 367, 368, writ of error refused in 108 Tex. 14, 191 S.W. 1138, 193 S.W. 139.
We quote the following from the syllabus of the first case cited:
“Taxpaying citizens of city held to have right to maintain suit to cancel contract between city and service company for sale of electric street lighting system, on ground that question was not submitted to electorate as required by Rev.St.1925, art. 1112.”
And the following from the syllabus of City of Austin v. McCall:
“The purchase by the city of Austin of the water and light plant owned by a private corporation for $175,000, created a' debt to that amount which could not be contracted without providing a sinking fund for its retirement, as required by article 11, section 5, of the Constitution, though such purchase was part of an arrangement for compromising other existing debts and judgments held by the water and light company against the city.”
And the following from the syllabus of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in Terrell v. Middleton, supra, in which a writ of error was denied:
*1078“A bill appropriating money to pay bills contracted by the Governor for water, fuel, lights, etc., for the Governor’s mansion, containing items for food, liquors, groceries, and automobile repairs for the Governor’s private use, is violative of Const, art. 3, § .50, providing that the Legislature shall have no power to authorize the giving or lending of the credit pf the state for the payment of the liabilities of an individual.”
As pointed out in our original opinion, the city council was authorized to make the transfer of funds complained of, and therein lies the distinction between the present suit and the cases cited. The complaint here is of the failure to take certain steps preliminary to the special meeting of the board of aldermen, at which the resolution was passed making the transfer of funds complained of, which was a question of procedure and not of primary lawful authority. The passage of the ordinance without a strict compliance with those procedural requirements, which were directory in character, could not increase plaintiff’s taxes, and therefore could not have caused him injury. 30 Tex.Jur. § 92, p. 186, § 97, p. 192, § 98, p. 193, § 184, p. 335; State v. Heilman, 120 Tex. 282, 36 S.W.(2d) 1002; Crouch v. City of McKinney, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 54, 104 S.W. 518 (writ of error denied); Moon v. Thomas, Mayor (Tex.Civ.App.) 261 S.W. 476.
The motion for rehearing is overruled. ■