Court Opinion

ID: 9829759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:36:06.833625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:05.797912
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Our first finding of fact is so amended as to include the following description of the warrants mentioned in the judgment:
All warrants were dated May 31, 1904, the last day of the fiscal year 1903-04, the numbers thereof were given, beginning' with number 6,285 and ending, with number 6,5S2, but not running in consecutive order; numbers being, skipped all along. The name of each payee is given, as well as the amount and character of expense for which each warrant was issued; all being issued in payment of expense for one of the departments of the city, and amounting in the aggregate to $8,269.81.
Our second finding of fact is amended so as to include section 1 of the ordinance, of which sections 2 and 3 are contained in our said finding; said section, omitting list of items in the budget, being as follows: “That the following special funds for the following special purposes constituting the current expenses of the city of San Antonio, for the fiscal year beginning June 1, 1903, and ending May 31, 1904, are hereby created, provided and set apart out of the current revenues of said fiscal year, and are declared to be disbursable only for the respective purposes, for which said several special funds are created; and' every person who may hold at any time a warrant, drawn against either *625of - said funds and in accordance with, and under the provisions of any section of this ordinance, is hereby declared to have a claim and lien upon such funds extending to the revenues from which said fund is to be derived as heréinafter stipulated; said special funds and special purposes for which they are disbursible being as follows, to wit: * * * Said amounts being the same amount heretofore mentioned and provided for in an ordinance providing for the expenditures of the city of San Antonio, for the fiscal year beginning June 1, 1903, and ending May 31, 1904, adopted May 28, 1903. This section of this ordinance being intended to enlarge and make said former ordinance more specific.”
We are asked to consider assignments 6, 7, and 8 because reference is made to propositions and statements under the preceding assignments. Assignments 6 and 7 raise the same questions as the preceding assignments, and, the propositions having been held not tenable, the same holding will as a matter of course be applied to these two assignments.
[7] Assignment No. 8 .relates to another matter, and cannot be considered as a proposition because it embraces two distinct propositions, nor are the propositions referred to germane to such assignment, for which reasons said assignment will not be considered.
Motion overruled.