*1 quo in so destroyed the status junction it Appellants, al., CITY OF SAN et ANTONIO concerned. were cattle far as defendant’s mandatory is no there the instant Virginia HANDLEY, Sole, al., Feme et any expelling respect provision with Appellees. Moreover, question. in land cattle order the trial time of ANTONIO, Appellant, CITY OF SAN only 7 injunction there temporary appellants belonging to of cattle head JONES, Sole, R. al., Bertha Feme et enclosure in the west any them or Appellees. applied. As stated injunction Nos. brief, paragraph if such appellees in their mandatory be said to be could decree Court of Civil of Texas. typical character, it be a situation would San Antonio. non minimis of “de doctrine where the Oct. certainly apply. There is curat lex” should injunc- granting the nothing the order Rehearing Denied Dec. appellants from prevent the which will tion grazing lots and fencing in their own graze. want to
many thereon as cattle
Moreover, men court makes no Stringfellow of Article Perry v.
tion
1351a, Ann.Penal Code of Texas, Annotated, which ref has
State cattle or other pasturing more
erence by a a tract owned or leased on
livestock
person than the tract general in a enclosure by him rea or leased would owned tracts pasture. Arti
sonably 2-a Section in addition gives,
cle enacted provided for in and remedies
other relief in section, apply for right proper any against
junction in court pro violating
person Under the the Act. decisions
visions of State, unnecessary we feel it is rely upon Art. 1351a
appellees to sought the relief
they are entitled to whether such regardless of Article is case. instant
applicable in the and have
Appellants’ been Points suf- in the discussion
ficiently covered assigned by appellants, points of error same, together with all their other overruled.
points, are the trial court judgment tem- affirmed, enjoining the Griffiths is
porarily appellants S. Trahan and as to but J. reversed and the tem- Trahan
Jimmy dissolved. injunction is
porary *2 Atty., Cadena, A. W.
Carlos C. Antonio, Worthy, City Atty., San Jr., Asst. appellants. Spears, Adrian A. Spears, Franklin S. Antonio, appellees. San POPE, Justice. appealed from two
summary judgments, consolidated, here fifty-one plaintiffs, which held that Department, in the Police members of Firemen’s and Policemen’s System Service that all of were entitled to receive the benefits of a pay minimum ordinance which covered the peace in the officers urges are to a classification However, System. classified, they if so are urges then are classified jobs they perform and should receive fixed statute instead of the minimum fixed ordinance for persons in different classifica- tions.
: operators porters, covered unanimous board City again challenges concerning interpretation- of the Courts 1269m, Vernon’s by Article those covered *3 employees City claims that these point urged City has this Ann.Civ.Stats. of lost status reason their Civil Service before previously, three times four times plan and 1953. reorganization during a 1952 Austin Court, the once before this and employees Twelve were transferred points Appeals. Civil Similar Court of Department the Police to the of urged by cities twice other have been Department. The rest Public Works always the has been The answer Texas. employees transferred in this suit were its same, defined Legislature because to the from the Police itself construed own terms and Department. City concedes that Personnel beyond “Police word When we read persons were prior to the transfers these Act, learn we title of men” used Department, with members of the Police expressly stated Legislature in no transfers status. The Civil Service applies of the Police “members” to Act nature, way place, changed or terms 2, Article Department. 1269m. Section employees employment; con of and the 12, that further, in Section Reading we see “day to the direct tinued their work under and expressly applies to “offices the Act Department. day supervision” of Police employees.” positions,” “officers City employees were these reasons that mentioned reading assignments were These administratively moved out Wiley, City v. of San Antonio not be they should and that Service status “mon case termed App., 252 a S.W.2d action.” “court restored what it terms terms, Act, by City. its by the strous” city court both action and suggest We peace as well “employees” as applies to subject “Legislative action are to the Legisla officers; and is because this a City nor Court is action.” this Neither prece number of growing Aso. ture Legis free a agent to rewrite law words point to dents statutes; they do not lature. Courts read and Police Firemen’s City see. cannot permitted City action is them. If the write City Service Commission men’s Civil Act, cannot Court the Civil Service Wells, Tex.Civ.App., v. Antonio San interfere; permitted if that action is not Cox, 676; Falls v. City of Wichita S.W.2d will interfere and 317; City of Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d the law the Act. declare under Tex.Civ.App., 293 Castillo, Antonio San 691; City Whitley v. Employees S.W.2d the Act are 857; Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W.2d
Angelo, protective. entitled certain measures. Hahn, Tex.Civ. Antonio statutory of San Illustrative of the grant of those 162; City of San benefits is Section which relates to Wiley, supra. suspensions. Antonio v. indefinite employee is
entitled to specifies written notice which suspension, asks that reasons again this Court read hearing a days thirty within before of the Act the definition terms the out Commission. itself, benefits are gave granted in the Act Other Legislature because con City’s cerning demotions, shocking disciplinary suspen definition is idea of sions, policeman It abolition positions, is. no less what a Courts, military leaves of 19, 20, to this but the shocking other absence. Secs. 22a, 1269m, art. must less than this Court follow no Ann.Civ.Stats. If, terms, City urges, may first includes the definition administra Department,” tively employee “offi transfer of the Police with “member employees.” status to some unprotected “officers and positions,” ces department ma Hence, though discharge him, then appellees, workers, deprive mechanics, switch- otherwise him clerical trons, Civil Service
6H benefits, meaningless. important point whole is The other is fifty-one the Civil purpose declares whether Sec. 16a patrolmen efficient Service Law to secure under San influ Departments, political “free from Ordinances merely ence,” guaranteed permanent tenure “and with by Arti- as fixed public Members cle employment as servants.” point Vernon’s Ann.P.C. The arose Boards are directed passed of Civil Service manner: has se- with that ries of the law in ordinances fixing administer accord the base salaries peace con Department. purpose. give If effect to officers in we the Police *4 declared The urged by City, the ordinances classified struction and fixed base salary Police, Act objectives inspectors, Service the Chief of the Civil captains, lieutenants, detectives, become destroyed. sergeants, would wholly The Act superintendents maintenance, employees by meaningless as to vehicle patrolmen. expedient Patrolmen, simple an administrative Legis ordinances, give pay, to various transfer. We shall effect received the least intent, 3 ranging court. as trial from in an lative did the ordinance enacted $300 Construction, 1954, $340, in Sutherland, Statutory to in 1957. The ordinances § Cox, purport classify Tex.Civ. not In Falls v. do fix Wichita or salaries persons employed capacities. transferred for other in Employees Department argue ordinances, that in members the Police them, them, fact paid failing to include departments but in law did include rights salary destroy at a not Civil Service below that of the did patrolmen. In employees. approved already The trial court had to the accrued Hahn, reasoning. The solution of San Antonio issue again order found in the App., 274 words of S.W.2d the Civil “rein was should Service Act: since Department, in the Police stated” * * positions “Sec. 12. All *: accrued had rights under Civil their Department, except the Fire rights. to those were entitled Department, Chief or head of the Department, and in the except City further claims that that of or Depart- Chief head of that their employees lost status on Civil Service ment, by shall be classified the Com- 22, 1957, after August trial while the positions mission filled from Court, pending was since House provided eligibility as lists herein. 391, Fifty-fifth c. Legislature Bill way Sections 2 amended in such positions “All officesand in the Fire eliminate these Department as to or Police policemen. classification The law was by shall be established ordinance of the purpose, prospective retroactive governing body, pro- Council or Sutherland, appears vided, however, from the Title. 3 if the officer or Statutory Construction, employee permitted shall have been § (6) probationary serve six months Title to the Act declares its period, service of said officer or is to purpose redefine “Firemen” and ipso employee shall facto constitute “by and to amend Section “Policemen” position creation stopping the creation in the futures of new office under a civil service classifi- positions unless classified established cation.” * * *.” The intent is to ordinance * * * in the future and with operate reference to “Sec. G. In the event rights any whose Civil Service have new classification is established previously fixed. not been either name increase of salary, competitive P.C., ordinance, language filled nor contains shall he same pay any which indicates an intent in accordance with this examination employee job at rate other than law.” which he Whitley was classified. or Policemen “Sec. 24. Firemen Angelo, Tex.Civ.App., of San city each affected actual service night several watchmen had hereby, passage final at the time served more than six months and were Act, of this to civil service Court, then discharged. on classification, status of enjoy shall authority of 12 and of'the Sections having employees without civil service position night held that watchman any competitive to take examinations ipso was night facto created if watch- time, occupied at the position for the man served six months before the was provided and Policemen such Firemen adopted, or if he for six months served city have been the service of said before he discharged. was (6) months.” than six more Employees former reason that decisions employee The Act reflects that an *5 point have settled this in their Our favor. automatically ipso and be classified facto examination is of the cases shows that this service, he is classi- by six months and that issue, the first case in which an free from employed position.” Those fied in “said agreement an about amount of mini- the long as six at the time the months wages, mum has been In the Hahn made. effective, having to take became without case, stipulated employees City the that examination, the classified “for were patrolmen pay would draw if the Court position occupied the at time.” Classifi- they policemen held the were under by salary. by name or Sec. cations case, In the Castillo there was no and issue G, subd. art 1269m. no mention the amount of The pay. Cox case that was minimum shows there a which The ordinances classified salary by fixed City the for all “members” intended, peace officers never either were Department. of the These Police cases expressly by from their lan inference present one differ the wherein we classify employees within guage, to all the agreement pay have no of the base which City The classified entire they the should receive if are cov- positions, classify other and failed to some by proof only ered and the shows employees including those of action. they that they jobs classified in were classify, failed the Act When the ipso they held were when facto classified. in the classified the itself employees The were classified thus out department, but classified them in the of patrolmen the status and into the status occupied positions they at the salaries jobs they performing. A were classi- drew, they otherwise. When the but not patrolman. porter is A fied not a classified classify one of did not ordinances patrolman pay for base is not a base employee still had the employees, that porter. pay for concerning posi protection the Act occupied, but not some he tion .other part judgment affirm that of the We purport position. ordinance did The employees which held all that were positions classify jobs other than to Civil classification. entitled We designated. those part judgment reform pay the Penal Code fixes fixed the base drawn 1S83-2 of at rate Article patrolmen, for fix salary members the minimun 1583-2, plus longevity, rate fixed Article Department at Vernon’s Ann. $220 appeal Bailey receive that of Blanch employees entitled to P.C. were was 1269m, previously Neither Article dismissed. Costs- are amount. divided minimurii Ann.Civ.Stats., employees. nor between and the art. Rehearing. Supreme Motions Court the Wells' case On grant
stated that it had refused to writs cases, several Civil Service least at rehearing, City, by its motion one point of which same had been ten of the fact that invites our attention to squarely presented. into the appellees were transferred Hahn, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d in 1952. Department of Public Works opinion was one those cases. The Tease, Ward, Moore, They are, appellees of the isolated 'Granieri, Hopkins, Casey, Clack, Davis, issues, stated controlling two one of argues Rodriguez. City Janert, and Bias was: employees “Are such all reorgan a bona fide that the transfer was P.C., benefits of Article including transfer, paper ization patrolmen granted raises placed those were Council?” The Court held that supervision Director direction and were Article, entitled to the benefits of that City argues of Public that those Works. parties agreed upon while the delayed appellees seeking rein action their amount, agreement there was no policemen years and for four statement applied. Article areWe convinced that concerning that a fact issue laches the refusal of writ in also present different as to them. No new or decided this one. because hired reorganization and the work of City of Frederickson, Galveston v. Tex. appellees ten as it continued the same did Civ.App., does not hold to before. The situation is similar to that contrary. That case held that the fire *6 presented of San Antonio v. marshal brought suit, who under the Castillo, 691, Tex.Civ.App., 293 city ordinances, was not member of the however, opinion, In our not laches was department. fire In case he was not pleadings. raised Five different a member In this suits were consolidated the trial court. were “members” of the de pleadings answer which concern partment. to these ten do not relate The motions for rehearing appellees mention an issue of laches. Laches was appellants are overruled. 94, not in the case. Rule Texas Rules of Procedure; Pickens, Civil Culver v. 167;
Tex. 176 S.W.2d Perkins v.
Martel, Tex.Civ.App.,
Policemen’s Civil Service Commission of Wells, of San Antonio v. NICHOLS, Appellant, Chet O. Supreme held one be a “member of the SIMPSON, Appellee. D.C. Department” under the Civil Service No. 13263. yet Act and at the same time qualify a “duly appointed policeman and enrolled” Court of of Texas. 1269m, under the Pension Act. Art. Sec. San Antonio. 6243f, Art. Sec. 7(a), Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Dec. City urges Stats. like reason one may be a member of the Police Rehearing Denied Jan. yet
qualify for the benefits of the minimum
salary act. Art. Vernon’s Penal
Code.