*1 veredicto, non obstante motion doing is in so

action of the trial court

affirmed. expressed, the the views

Because of immaterial points

appellee’s counter anything we pass of the case out would be say about

would

dicta. the trial judgment of

Accordingly, the

court is affirmed. Yates, Brownsville,

E. appellant. for Ransome, Eidman, Davenport C. & S. Wiech, Brownsville, appellees. Jr., Jack DIS NAVIGATION ARROYO COLORADO ARCHER,' Chief Justice. WILLACY AND CAMERON TRICT OF Appellant, COUNTIES, proceeding, is a scire insti- This appellant February tuted on in the 103rd of Cameron Judicial Appellees. al., YOUNG, Receiver M. John County, Texas,. to revive a No. 10357. $213,517.52 the sum of rendered against defendants, court. including several Appeals Texas. Civil -appellees herein, on March 1933. Austin. No-execution has issued said ever been Dec. 1955. of, judgment, nor has the life said extended scire facias or Rehearing Jan. Denied action of debt. The trial court.ruled that present proceeding is barred limita- provided by tion as Article 5532 of the Re- Statutes, and, basing vised its action on that ruling, the court rendered appellant. appeal predicated assign- on one ment of error and is that “The trial court erred in pleas of limitation of overruling denying appellant’s scire facias to revive said thereby holding that the statutes run against of ten appellant’s cause of action.” position takes the that the appel- dormant and that governmental agency lant is a and that run against Appel- limitation does not it. says further lant under Section 59 *2 309 Most if not all óf the districts we have Constitution, Ann. Vernon’s 16, the were created under Art. Sec. 59 or have bénefit of St., functions' and - either Act of converted public. Legislature or voters such dis- and 3773 appellees Article invoked tricts, generally Improve- and Water are the, re- V.A.C.S.,- 5532, Article seq.; ment Districts. Article et 7622 Wa- court and the trial judgment newal of Districts, ter seq.; Control Article 7808 et is barred that the action found Improvement Districts, and of limitation. utes seq.; Article et 7880-1 Fresh Water Dis- tricts, seq.; Article 7881 et Levee Improve- cor- trial court was believe that the We seq.; Article et Návi- pleas of limitation rect District, gation seq. Article 8198 et denying overruling and and in -judg- appellant’s scire facias revive Districts have ad- ment.- powers provided by 8263h, ditional Article ‘ Article 5532 reads as follows: -particular to 50. This §§ operating under Article Sec. 59 and - record-, any judgment “A court of 8263h, Article to 50. §§T not execution has issued within where months after rendition twelve Carpenter Arroyo-Colorado Nav. Dist. judgment, may revived scire Tex.Civ.App., Willacy Counties, of Cameron and -’of debt brought an action 1 S.W.2d 822. 11 years thereon within ten after date Willacy County In Water Control and not and after.” al. in 1933 reads: droth, as amended 177 S.W.2d Court held that “If is issued no execution within ten years judg- after the rendition of a districts, “Irrigation navigation dis- any record, ment in court of tricts, improvement districts, - ment shall dormant and no ex- and like subdivisions created ecution shall issue thereon unless such 59(a) Section of Article XVI If be revived. the first ex- and statutes en- has years, ecution issued within the ten pur- carrying thereunder out the acted shall not become dor- poses provision, ’constitutional mant, years unless ten shall municipal corpora- are not classed with elapsed between the issuance of execu-- held to be sub- thereon, and execution issue performing gov- divisions time within ten after the standing up- issuance of the preceding execution.” as counties same other, political subdivisions established judgment sought We believe that to be rendered is forever barred and not not believe that Linz v. We do Eastland Packing dormant. Zummo Tex.Com.App., 39 S.W.2d Cotham, Tex.Com.App., point. inis This case is A.L.R. dis Texas & P. R. Co. v. Ward State, Tex.Com.App., in Hatcher Tex.Com.App., cited therein. Article provides for the develop- conservation application recent case The most on-the ment of all natural resources and for the statutes to districts of limitation creation of conservation and reclamation Sec. 59 of our under Art. districts as be found to be Lumber Co. v. Bassett Sam purposes. for such Houston, 145 Tex. 198 S.W.2d the Court from Abendroth that districts cre in which case Court discussed provision ated under

question fully. this municipal not “are classed with cor court is af- of the trial *3 porations, held firmed. State, performing the subdivisions of Affirmed. standing upon the same as counties and other subdivisions established HUGHES, Justice. opinion hut de- Court’s lead, it The above observations would sire, briefly, my state to views. me, logically seems to to the conclusion Appellant created under au- District was districts such as would not thority 59, of our Constitu- general § be amenable to the statutes of limi- tion, part: provides, in which no tation involved since there is subjecting thereto, ute under the rule may within “There be created political subdivisions, other than mu- Texas, may or be State of nicipal corporations, acting gov- when in a into, of divided such number conser- capacity gen- are not bound may districts vation and reclamation as County eral laws limitation. See be to be determined to the ac- Blackburn, 419; 100 Tex. v. 93 S.W. complishment purposes of this County, Tex.Com.App., Linz v. Eastland which amendment 1466; S.W.2d Comanche agen- shall be districts County Burks, Tex.Civ.App., v. 166 S.W. politic corporate cies and bodies ref. writ powers government such case, hand the Bassett On other authority with the to exercise such suit for taxes and school dis privileges rights, and functions con- Court, trict, cited states that two cerning the matter of this year statute of limitations available as was amendment as be conferred by irrigation to brought defense tax suits law." there and levee districts times when V.A.C.S., pertaining 8263a, to Nav- Art. contrary citing no statute Texas was & P. pursuant to was enacted igation County Dist., R. Co. v. Ward Irr. Tex. and Sec. 4 thereof the above amendment 542; Com.App., Rutledge 270 S.W. part, provides, in that such Districts 117 Tex. 1071; County State for Dallas Bois “* * * i,e shaii Governmental Glenn, D’Arc Island Levee Dist. v. politic Agencies and bodies and cor- S.W.2d 1028. porate powers Govern- went Glenn The case authority to ment and with exercise question Court on a certified privileges, and rights, functions district, whether or not a levee being cre- accomplish- essential to the as * *” * under statutes enacted under ated Art. ment of exempt was Sec. purposes were for which created. operation general from statutes of question was limitation. The answered provisions with these is the Consistent upon authority, principally, negative County Willacy State, supra. Rutledge v. & P. v. Ward was not cited. R. droth, opinion, quoted from in the Court’s held, grounds policy, Rutledge which The case also went to the Su- Control District created un a Water a certified Court on It in- 16, supra, improvement Art. county Sec. not amena der volved a district garnishment statutes. It organized to is to be under statutes enacted ble quotation adoption iii the made (1915) noted that pre- Ency. Law, 191, (1917). It cited. apply not the would be difficult sented was whether expressed thus available limitation was favor of statute of towns and consistently cities defense with some of “yes”, the [Mayor, etc., own 1920. The decisions. answer that enacted Constitution. That case & R. Co. v. Ward port trict Houston, its decision was basing Court writ of case was *4 pursuant taxes. The applicable its decision to Art. organized only in County error. a case cited to statute of limita reached the upon the Texas suit in the Ward case. It was held 59 of the the dis statutes, sup Su by Judge principle, Abendroth, lieve this Court has the it in view of the but, plied suing substantially in behalf of the state, are I believe the law should be as declared ton, of] ^[349] as we Galveston in favor of counties in Williams and as as if treated with ^[37] specific seen, were the state.” 40-41, Menard, power it has been respect holdings in the which, 3 S.W. I approved, to so declare of Hous do not be- 23 Tex. to this ap in Ward, Rutledge and Glenn cases. city suing Mellinger case involved a The. held, following cases for taxes. The Court ju from other well of its own as GRAY, Justice. risdictions, limitations would run municipal corporation unless ex against a conclusion reached empted by statute. This case referred Chief ARCHER in affirming the Justice by Judge Williams judgment. trial agree court’s I also with Blackburn, supra Tex. [100 opin- HUGHES in his concurring Justice quote: I 422], from which However I think ion. do not Samin Bassett Lumber “In the case of Coleman v. Thur Co. Houston cited Chief mond, broadly it was presented. decides here Justice The stated that the statute did not run applicable holding is because county, against a reason that opinion. reasoning contained in the part performing it was a That was suit for taxes due the portion of its func years subsequent school district for immunity entitled 1932 amendment of Sec. In Houston & belonged to it. There the Texas Constitution. Court dis- n Central Railway v. Travis holding authorities that the defense was lim 62 Tex. [16] did not violate Sec. itedto sovereignty cases ‘where the is 3 as' it existed to .its amendment in substantially interested in and vested Court said [145 ownership right S.W.2d 882]: litigation matter and which opera sought subjected to be Legislature, “That the notwithstand- the statutes of tion of inhibitions, ing had limitations/ was, effect, held in other power it legislation to enact such operates cases the statute classes of governing the collection unit, counties. This beyond distinction any taxing ; observed authorities.) seems (Citing true, That is if municipal corporations reason, reference to simply for no other because protect causes of and to action assert- limitation statutes do not re- ‘they debt, are of extinguish : ed lease or but mere- ¡nature, pertain purely and such as ly remedy affect when its enforce- affairs.’ 17 Eng. sought.” Am. & ment is