*1 Tes.) v. DAVIS HEMPHILL (243S.W.) creditors, particularly sight keep how much would Ms to reasonable for purpose conveyance it, go taking as to that appellant, time from at vitiating remainder; much and it as to the but affirmatively swearing ing in into detail will set aside the whole transaction.” participated in appellee about and bоth knew appel Benson, within such consummation. Coughran To the same Ed effect insolvent, knowledge, was at time lee’s wanted mondson, 106 Tex. Al 172 S. rig appellee cover over to to take Carpenter, len Tex. two, talking up, situa after
Mm accordingly reversed, attorney’s over, to see went to an office tion the cause remanded. appellee said While about matter. Reversed and remanded. then indebtedness he know about didn’t admitted-knowing appellant, oth about he to creditors, pressing then testified er follows: rig, he DAVIS et al. me about the v. HEMPHILL et he first came to “When purpose he to me for the came told me uр. having I not know me cover it of Civil of Texas. Fort Worth. purpose his to this bill sale' that I took cover May 13, Rehearing Denied pur rig. up his that it was I knew 1922.) my could, everybody pose purpose few but it was beat he to myself. to me He did come to save <§=369 Schools ariftschool districts —’Trustees sale, days this bill of before he executed legai of district held to have acted within au- up. knew cover I me he to and told wanted thority purpose. Aft about it. No erect thereon. 19th, on, I November I the bill of sale er took Sp. Laws, (1921) As & Loe. paid Benson much I Mr. not know how 18, creating § school dis- though. paid dollars him several hundred I it. I do Bryant proximately trict, provides in effect that the board of .trus- the amount that Mr. know whether tees are authorized to sites suggested there, $1,330, about erect and school furnish and nee.ded not.” correct or the trustees of such a should be that a new site appearing in the rec- feature selected, pur- undisput practically while ord chаse it and erect a acted rig $1,- be worth showed evidence ed jury owed Benson found 2. Schools and school of the bill of sale. appellee <®=»69—Decision $500 uphold not, held to proof action of state In this der subject, district trustees as to newa holding upon Supreme Court’s building. erection of appelleе’s part good faith County deciding trustees in that district recovery; he knew entitle him would Benson’s as of in establish- pur- professed insolvency, his ing a new school but that used bad delay his pose hinder and least judgment change in not three got sale creditors, and he jury Benson found in value what times recommending done, upheld that this be Black is thus stated The rule him. owed of the local board so that Vaughan, though 70 Tex. it, could not v. recently approved Cobern, arose as to in Stevens involved school authorities. 925: 213 W. Tex. reasonably property may ®=»48(7) 3. Schools school districts creditor] take to the amount “[A —Coun- ty judicial quasi proportioned of his trusteеs act as debt board in con- value thereby sidering appeals superintendent, payment does he preference judgments. the oth over their decisions are obtain a in the nature of appeals more than appropriat If receives is what he er creditors. from the debt, solely payment the sale board of school trus- received be the amount judicial quasi will be tees act as and their de- the amount of the debt. excess somewhat judgments, cisions nature of .however, not, must unreasonable. The excess should be so construed. goes receives if the creditor But more pose, Judgment Judgment nn >23— defined and dis- necessary pur reasonably for that tinguished findings. moneyed paying consideration payment excess, more than more than receive he does findings recommendation purchaser debt, of fact he becomes his property place debtor, helps failing to the future him course of the parties litigant. creditors, giving beyond him is the solemn reach of other sentence of facts found, pronounced equivalent law the final these creditors the court on the therefor which subject claims. In consideration to their eases and determination competent court of an unreasonable amount receives creditor payment failing submitted to from a the debtor of of debt, (ciiing no estimate of will make constitute thereof Key-Numbered Digests <g=»For KEY-NUMBER all other cases *2 SOUTHWESTERN 243 692 Judg- petitioners county Phrases, Series, to the 2 ment). Second Words and appeal who ren- and the following dered the decision: 5. Schools and school <S=>III —Tax- appeal payers on with decision “Montague county the school board session trustees to continue Subject-matter: meeting: Change a called of before authorities school public Texas, Jo, location school site of. injunction. jurisdiction public school. would have of Taxpayers, “We, Montague county the board, dissatisfied with deсision school find hearing to the ac- school of trustees and render our decision after the law quisition follows, a erection of new and evidence in the case as to wit: by board, must of a thereon “1. We find and that the St. Jo school Superintendent continue the and thence pursuant as far as Education, establishing of the State Board a site school concerned. Leg. (1905) they and to Acts “2. further have used bad Leg. (1915) Acts 34th 36 business and discretion refer- ring contemplated before Civ. St. 2749a to the a patrons of the district court and election of school in the form of an said injunction by ac- them for suit tion and recommend that this board. loсal be done. “3. We further believe that it is advisable that and that rescind their actions in matter this for Motion they give patrons the above mentioned Overruling <®=>832(6)— of and error a chance to render decision on so a vital dis- for notice matter, an in the form of election. injunction held harmless error. solve “O. G. Garrett. plаintiff’s Overruling motion that de- of Petty. “D. E. of their motion 10 fendants A. Fincher. “E. “John injunction, required by Rev. dissolve Kirby.” war- held error not St. art. harmless rehearing, ranting ren- a a where petitioners alleged was the merits dered on possible, fraud. county board of school and decision of the charged with and defendants was in favor of their contеntion that purchased new not be site should the. ac- independ- quired, of Montague Court, District district, school hereinafter called trus- Pearman, Judge. County; C. R. therefrom; tees, by G. others G. Davis and Suit O. have refused rescind the order to correct and Hemphill others. Prom a and W. passed by looking acquisition of them injunction, dismissing a site, аccepted a new new school and have a appeal. Affirmed. ad- different and are now and appellants. Donald, Bowie, vertising for of & Davis, for bids for the erection of a three- Donald Gainesville, story H. T. O. be erected Yarbrough, Jo, appellees. They alleged for of St. site selected. further petitioners are owners district, and, Millikin, within situated the school Davis, BUCK, D. E. G. C. disregard permitted Hemphill the trustees are Payne, for T. and M. A. themselves by taxpaying order made entered qualified voters other district, independent of board, hereinafter called Jo any permitted injunction enter into Montague county, asked contrаry binding contract the trustees purposes intents and taking any order made straining action what them petitioners awarding any will contract in reference to ever damages. any building upon sustain for the erection of a plea one, present to the The defendants answered until general of the district been of the site had selection demurrer, by plea the order of the to an election voters majority the action did not overrule general plaintiff de aban decided favor of of doning those specially present pleaded They nial, school site. condemned to school had refused that said building, selecting people as a school unsafe use building, hill in a on a bleak and desolate proposed located new school appealed complainants from of town few resi dences, superintendent and no business houses action such growth;
Montague county, that no can be favor water who found in drinking, refusing petition; and the location lot suitable of the board action that high reached the so that.it cannot be was taken thereafter and KEY-NUMBER see same other oases
'heretofore it was to the effect that understand legation furnish, vide for the erection lishing on that school authorities heretofore mentioned as Education. prerequisite by county good mining the St. Jo ceeding south side of in the district. town's is located majority peal perintendent, and corruption appealed. scholastic Acts board of and extension that scribed the the From school site should be selected ther section 18 that junction, injunction сial and Local 34th Civ. all Superintendent, said railroad. Other tained Tex.) Seventh The It is [3, [1,2] appeals district court coming the board 4] will finding it faith of Leg. 1915, acting parts the Commission court a site for the school. water is admitted *3 side; Legislature in at first board and discretion in of the St. Jo mentioned. dangerous across the railroad population or fraud or bad faith on the thereof, the Acts of Jennings of which age. had not been purchase from school to of other was dissolved that the of the to the exercise of the town and refused to form school first that the system; answer be noted that 1905, 124, p. decision of the court, in and thence Hence making the school site. It scholastic board Laws all trustees to the granted from sites and erect a motion to dissolve duty it 322 children districts, needed (1921) 40, p. c. they complain. town of St. school board used bad resides no Under a law tending p. allegations plaintiffs school district. Carson, -parties him to the 2749a et urged passed thence to the State provided, the selection of the the children prosecuted plaintiffs charging cross a case where the on the the future appears and set population, There shall and held that opinion county board, authorized to from a the Board of to, per that a new the DAVIS Legislature tо this 220 W. submitted below within the Jo school show discussed in estab is no al tracks of are creating thereon, cent, west or Thirty- will growth election, As we with that effect, a fur have deter aside. taken going large have a Acts Spe pro pro con pre and the matter of (243 the of the local 3.W.) v. HEMPHILL ap su in- ments, judgment Black’s Law new sсhool. In the decision of the county mendation as ties prevent the local board’s action in pronounced by to the legal powers peal of fact in as If continue mination of a court of board rescind their Education, part consisted of mere it were thereby. this construction of the decision or Phrases 3 Bouv. court constitute no such an construe bility does or ent, done, in their in even ters which were State pronounced by competent judge in such the result of an action or “The determination or quasi judicial It [5] is—it in the litigant. successors, is the final consideration and deter raised as to the of the Hence we аnd a St. applicants board court, affirming Gray, answer was of said school in (Second the decision of is follows But we do not Inst. for its decision a jurisdiction. decision, they thence form before the District Court would position board of Dictionary of school trustees was It is board is does not exist.” the action of the local board. to erect a recommendation that conclude that the decision of board. Their determining are in the nature of Or. the school and be recommendations Series) p. the solemn which defendants to the State Board of given by be construed former action and future course of school authoritiеs. We advice, finding, board’s rescinding sound—and so competent jurisdiction more There sentence understand that the as: proceeding 70 Pac. would have had to far to it. 2 involved in an or even a recom- legal duty the form arose as to mat that 1245. But the findings sentence decisions or their Superintend any question within their facts found. as site for the or the actions the former the matters of the Words nothing defined of it. judgment. or instituted acting governed such. A interpret 71 Pac. advice of ah below judg- pres from par- lia- asj as if 243 SOUTHWESTERN
69á to injured titled as The motion is —and we still still of the pressed insistent one he for under the McWilliams tiffs’ record, Under tion to dissolve. trial overruling plaintiffs’ authority, to reverse tion, no fraud part April ror was committed postponed Parke filed they might Civ. ruling quired order, them. proper. not We The [6] One of article possession ROBINSON postponement App.) portion *4 April 4, to locate the injured holding of filed a motion that did render. rendered district. in our complain of mоtion for On thereafter. Civil above until a later view, have the law the local opinion that committed Civ. carefully Motion for other unlawful 1922. The should not be or otherwise think it overruled. deem it judgment merely error the 10 et al. Revised Commissioners’ error no other article. trespassers App.) argue the trial is at most harmless еxercise of sound discre land, worked a useless The denial of the motion 28, 1922.) in his favor whole whole of the land. =»877 — n rehearing, but we are is—and <®=o877(2) Appellants trial for the was of Texas. Statutes, the conclusions ex- If our SEALES April judgment technical error tract heard to I. & G. N. of land suggested (4) Trespassers fundamental er board is correct act on purpose on the injury notice, our conclusion court in best interests dissolve was and for title construction are correct. Court — because was had could hearing be is affirmed. order appellants’ Galveston. and since being complain our the title had the injuring allowed Ry. plain error. them; (Tеx. over time. have n mo im- en- for the court found that the land did so than judgment referred to in to of Nathan the judgment dinary the land as entitled to hold was entitled ers der unchallenged, the other in the land involved in ment for ousted as pellants complain whole ed? Elmer was if Elmer was not the child of Nathan death Elmer and her other childrеn inherited ley, and became the owners then at his death case Elmer in the mer cumstances referred to. Nash; coupled circumstances land Elmer was or was not against rights 3.Judgment We “There Mahaley, and LANE, Following [1] It was made clear For jointly Mahaley possession the absence whole of said child conclusion portion not is too‘well inherited the was Nash, not have, motion tract. of the other think the trial but there citizen, former owners not with the facts Nathan’s possession. is no injure appellants, children for the title trespassers rendered, presents of the land as Nash, mere at her land. as such Elmer could, by such as this statement we set out all her <®=w680—Does Nathan, This In our child Nathan Nash.” relative appellants specific finding think, clearly opinion, judgment rendered, that Elmer was not the child trespassers; understood, and in the face of are, clearly possession of a statement of rehearing. child, land, death, being true, why conclusions of ,of But, land, parties. children, land. naked Mahaley Nash, if the land was owned finding, in appellants, however, court, by she was entitled to a ato her suit surviving wife, court did find that El- not the owners. any event, entitled were the judgment, therefore, the child of Nathan it would and that Elmer owned no interest the land. not affect judgment any event, trespassers. way рossession our that Elmer and shown that tenant. Motion denied. question, the statement possession the whole of presume the court child of Na- view of the properly put absurdity. recover which opinion facts, affected the S. W. 754. rights of inherit- In such the or- render the cir- of such belong meant Elmer If not Elmer Maha justify would, stand Nash, judg own- mere find- said: title her ' otter oases see KEY-NUMBER ©=oFor