Court Opinion

ID: 9827145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:13:20.565741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:24.571783
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[2] After reconsidering this case, we have reached the conclusion that we erred in holding that the ordinance of the city of Waxaha-chie did not show on its face that it was unreasonable, and therefore not subject to "demurrer. The ordinance, after requiring the railway company to maintain a flagman at each crossing, provides that:
“Merely keeping a flagman at any one of said points while a train is in the switch yards of said corporation, or is approaching or leaving *63its depot, shall not be deemed a compliance with the provisions of this ordinance; but such corporation must maintain a flagman at each point where its right of way crosses any one or more of said streets, and it shall be necessary that such flagman remain at said point all during the day, and that he attend to the duty of flagman and giving timely warning to any and all persons approaching said right of way, on any one of the aforesaid streets, at said point, as to the coming of any car or cars, train or trains, or engine or engines.”
This court judicially knows that trains do not run at all times during any given 24 hours on any railroad in Texas, which makes it clear that a flagman was not necessary at the crossing all during the day, as required by the ordinance. It was not enough, under the ordinance, that flagman should be present at the crossing when trains are approaching, but that he shall be present “at said point all during the day.” This term embraces the time from midnight to midnight, and to comply with it would work a hardship on the railway company and be unreasonable. Muck-enfuss v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 229, 116 S. W. 51, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 783, 131 Am. St. Rep. 813, 16 Ann. Cas. 768; State v. Meagher, 124 Mo. App. 333, 101 S. W. 634.
Ordinarily a city ordinance is presumed to be valid, and its unreasonableness must be shown by evidence. But when, as in this case, it shows on its face to be unreasonable, it becomes a question of law and will be declared void. Such is the ordinance here under consideration.
Therefore the motion for rehearing will be granted, and the judgment will be affirmed.