Court Opinion

ID: 9834130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:19:23.19053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.888804
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Considering appellant’s motion for a rehearing, we have carefully gone over the whole ease again, and have convinced ourselves that we were right in our original opinion delivered herein, and wrong in granting a rehearing to appellee and affirming the 'judgment.
As held by us in our original opinion, it was a collateral attack upon the judgment of the commissioners’ court, who, under the Constitution, were alone charged with the power and authority to pass upon such claims. See opinion of this court in City of Brownsville v. Basse, 43 Tex. 44(1-449; Constitution of Texas, art. 5, §§ 1-18; article. 2241, c. 2, tit.. 40, Vernon’s Sayles’ Tex. Civ. Stats. 1914; Acts 1917, c. 146, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Siipp. 1918, arts. 7610, 7610a, 7619b).
The contest, if any, by the county should have been* made under the provisions of section 8, art. 5, of the Constitution, when the district court had appellate jurisdiction, which could have been done by certiorari proceedings. County Judge v. Salliway, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 239, 23 S. W. 837; Aug. A. Busch & Co. v. Caufield (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 244. In such proceeding only could the judgment of the commissioners’ court be questioned. Brockenborough and Wife v. Melton, 55 Tex. 493, 503; Hearn v. Camp, 18 Tex. 545.
The motion granted by this court affirming the judgment on the 15th day of November, 1923, is set aside, and the opinion withdrawn, and the motion for rehearing filed by appellant is now granted.
The judgment and opinion of this court reversing and rendering judgment in favor of James J. Fox, appellant, is reinstated, and here now entered as the judgment of the court.
Reversed and rendered.