Court Opinion

ID: 9826936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:59:44.163351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:19.651676
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant contends we failed to pass on his twenty-third assignment of error, to the effect that the trial court erred in his conclusions of law that the city of Mexia had the right to include the costs of the payment of street intersections, and apportion the cost thereof to the abutting properties on the ratio and basis that the front footage of such properties bore to the total front feet of the street improved; and appellant cites the provisions -of chapter 8, title 28, and contends said provisions are riot repealed by the provisions of •chapter 9 of title 28 of our Statutes. Chapter 8 of title 28 contains four articles, 1082 ,'to 1085, inclusive, and was enacted in 1875. Article 1082 authorizes a city council to improve streets, whenever, by a vote of two-thirds of the aldermen present, they may 4eem such improvement for the public interest; “provided, the city council pay one-third and the owner of the property two-thirds thereof, except at the intersection of •streets, from lot to lot across the streets ■either way shall' be paid for by the city alone,” etc. Article 1083 provides for making the estimate of the costs of such improvements, apportioning costs thereof, and assessing as taxes the proper proportionate amount .against each lot fronting the street improved. Articles 1084 and 1085 provide the method of enforcing payment of said assessments. ■Chapter 9 of title 28, comprising articles 1086 to 1096, both inclusive, also articles 1104 and 1105 of the Revised Statutes of 1925, was •enacted in 1909, and provides for a full and •complete method of procedure by the governing body of towns, cities, and villages incorporated under either general or special law, entirely independent of the provisions of chapter 8, title 28, to which reference is above made. But in order for any town, city, or village to proceed under the provisions of chapter 9 in making street improvements, the provisions of said chapter miist be adopted by a majority vote of the resident property taxpayers of such town, city, or village at a special election held for said purpose. Articles 1086 and 1104, Revised Statutes of 1925. In 1919 our street improvement statutes were amplified or made more complete by the enactment of articles 1097 to 1103, both inclusive ; but said amendments do not undertake to change or modify any existing statutes, but are designed to meet the situation where streets have been improved and for any reason no part of the cost has been borne by the abutting property owners, in which cases the governing body of such town, city, or village is authorized to assess or reassess such abutting property. The provisions of chapter 9, title 28, do not purport' to, and do not, repeal or modify the provisions of chapter 8, title 28; but if a town, city, or village has, by a vote of its property taxpaying citizens, accepted the benefits of the provisions of chapter 9, as the city of Mexia did ⅛ this ease, then in making street improvements it is governed thereby, and the provisions of chapter 8 have no application, but in the absence of such acceptance, the provisions of chapter 8 would have been controlling. As the provisions of chapter 9 are controlling in this case, and said provisions authorize three-fourths of the total costs, including street intersections, to be assessed against abutting property and its owner, there is no merit in the above contention of appellant. Articles 1088 and 1090, Revised Civil Statutes 1925; Sullivan v. Roach Paving Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 444.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.