96 S.W.2d 564 | Tex. App. | 1936
A. H. McCarty and Elvin E. Kunkel have appealed from an order of Hon. A. J. Power, as judge of the district court of Tarrant county of the Ninety-Sixth judicial district, denying their petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Van Zandt Jarvis, mayor, and other members of the city council of the city of Fort Worth, to submit to the qualified voters of the city for adoption or rejection a proposed amendment to the charter of the city.
According to allegations in plaintiffs' petition, the defendants, as members of the city council, have refused to grant a petition signed by more than 10 per cent. of the qualified voters of the city, including plaintiffs, to submit the proposed amendment to the city charter to the voters of the city at an election to be called for that purpose, in violation of the provisions of articles 1166 and 1170, Rev.Civ.Statutes of 1925, and the suit was brought by plaintiffs in behalf of all those petitioners to enforce the rights given by those statutes; with further allegations that the city of Fort Worth is a city of more than 5,000 inhabitants and subject to those statutory provisions.
*565Following is the petition presented to the city council and refused:
"A petition to the City Council for an amendment to the charter of the City of Fort Worth requiring a majority vote for the election of City Councilmen.
"Shall Chapter IV of the existing charter of the city of Fort Worth, Texas, be amended by adding thereto Section 6, which shall hereafter read as follows:
"Section 6: Hereafter all candidates for the office of City Councilmen of the City of Fort Worth shall receive a majority vote of the electors voting at an election of City Councilmen before they shall become eligible to the office. Should any candidate, or candidates, receive less than a majority vote at such election, then the two candidates receiving the highest popular vote in their respective places to which they aspire shall be entitled to have their names placed on the ballot at a second election, which shall be held in the City of Fort Worth on the first Tuesday after the fourth Monday of April next after the results of the first election are ascertained. It shall be the duty of the City Council to make all necessary provisions therefor; all provisions of the Charter of the City of Fort Worth and especially those of Chapter III and IV are hereby repealed in so far as the same conflict with the provisions hereof, and candidates who receive a majority of the votes cast for candidates in their respective places shall be declared elected to such office."
The city council is composed of nine members, all of whom were made defendants, but after the suit was instituted three of the members filed a pleading joining with plaintiffs in the suit and adopting the allegations of their petition.
The defendants answered by general demurrer, special exceptions, a general denial, and special pleas of fact.
The trial judge sustained the general demurrer and special exceptions, presenting the elements of a general demurrer, and dismissed the suit, after plaintiffs had declined to amend.
By one of the special exceptions and by counter propositions in appellees' briefs, the point is made that it is apparent from plaintiffs' pleadings that the sole basis of claim of individual right in the petitioners to the mandamus prayed for is the fact that they are qualified voters in the city, and therefore they have no justiciable interest in the subject-matter of the controversy different from that of the general public, in the absence of which they showed no right to the writ.
Article 11, § 5, of our State Constitution, reads: "Cities having more than five thousand (5000) inhabitants may, by a majority vote of the qualified voters of said city, at an election held for that purpose, adopt or amend their charters, subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by the Legislature, and providing that no charter or any ordinance passed under said charter shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State."
Article
Article 1166 reads: "The ordinance providing for the submission of such question shall require that it be submitted at the next regular municipal election, if one should be held, not less than thirty nor more than ninety days after the passage of said ordinance; otherwise it shall provide for the submission of the question at a special election to be called and held not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days after the passage of said ordinance and the publication thereof in some newspaper published in said city."
Article 1170 reads: "When the governing body desires to submit amendments to any existing charter and in the absence of such petition, said body may, on its own motion, and shall upon the petition of at least ten per cent of the qualified voters of said city, submit any proposed amendment or amendments to such charter. The ordinance providing for the submission of any proposed amendment shall make the same provisions for holding the election and publishing notice thereof as provided in the second article of this chapter. The governing body of said city shall cause the city clerk or city secretary to mail a copy of the proposed amendment or amendments to every qualified voter in said city as appears from the tax collector's rolls for the year ending January 31st, preceding said election. Every amendment submitted must contain only one subject, and in preparing the ballot for such amendment, it shall be done in such manner that the voter may vote `Yes' or `No' on any amendment or amendments without voting `Yes' or `No' on all of said amendments. Each such proposed amendment, if approved by the majority of the qualified voters voting at said election, shall become a part of the charter of said city. No amendment shall be considered adopted until an official order has been entered upon the records of said city by the governing body thereof declaring the same adopted."
Appellants insist that the provisions of article 1170 that the governing body of a city "`shall upon the petition of at least ten per cent of the qualified voters of said city, submit any proposed amendment or amendments to such charter," are mandatory, leaving no discretionary authority in the governing body to refuse a petition which comes strictly within those provisions.
They stress the opinion written by Chief Justice Gaines in Kimberly v. Morris,
But in Yett v. Cook,
"We might well rest our opinion on this question on the construction of the charter alone, but there is still another fundamental reason why the relator cannot maintain this action. It is a rule of universal acceptation that to entitle any person to maintain an action in court it must be shown that he has a justiciable interest in the subject-matter in litigation, either in his own right or in a representative capacity. State of Texas v. Farmers' Loan Trust Co.,
"In Dickson v. Strickland, supra [
"`It is not claimed that appellant Dickson has any interest in the subject-matter of this suit other than to subserve the public interest. His lack of special interest is fatal to his capacity to maintain his suit in the absence of a valid statute authorizing him to sue. City of San Antonio v. Strumberg,
Then follow citation of numerous decisions cited by appellants here, including Kimberly v. Morris,
That rule of decision was followed by this court in the case of City Council of Wichita Falls v. M. H. Coker,
Under the foregoing authorities, we conclude that appellants have no justiciable interest in the matter of submitting the proposed amendment to the voters of the city, and therefore they show no right to maintain this suit.
We conclude further that notwithstanding the provisions of article 1170, made the basis of the petition for the election, the petition for mandamus in this suit failed to show sufficient grounds for the writ on the merits, because if the amendment had been adopted it would have been ineffective for the reasons hereinafter noted.
Article 4, § 2, of the City Charter of Fort Worth, provides: "There shall be but one election, and that a general election, for the purpose of selecting members of the City Council, the same to be held biennially, the first election after the adoption of this charter to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April, A.D. 1925, and thereafter on the same day of each succeeding year."
The proposed amendment provides for a second election in the event of failure of any candidate to receive a majority of all the votes in the first election. But it leaves in force the requirement for a biennial election to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April, and provides that the second election shall be held three weeks later, to wit, on the first Tuesday after the fourth Monday in April next after the results of the first election are ascertained.
That amendment would, in the event of a second election, operate to extend the term of office of the member of the council filling the position for which the second election is held more than two years, which is forbidden by section 30 of article 16 of the State Constitution, providing that the duration of all offices not fixed by that Constitution shall never exceed two years; and the provision of article
Appellants have cited State ex rel. Marcolin v. Smith,
Three decisions of the same court are cited in the majority opinion to support that conclusion, the leading case being Pfeifer v. Graves, Secy. of State,
Whatever may be the rule of decisions of other states to the contrary, we believe it is definitely settled by the decisions of this state that the rule applicable in suits for injunctive relief, to the effect that the court will not render a judgment that will accomplish no benefit to the complainant, is equally applicable here. Even though the petitioners for the submission of the proposed amendment brought themselves within the letter of article 1170, Rev. Civ.Statutes, the court will not require the calling of the election if it appears that the amendment, if adopted, would be in violation of the constitutional provisions prohibiting the duration of any term of office for more than two years, because, as expressed in some of the decisions, that would be requiring the doing of a vain thing. And as held in State v. Catlin,
Among the many decisions supporting our foregoing conclusion are the following: Houston Tap B. Ry. Co. v. Randolph,
We conclude further that the city of Fort Worth was a necessary party defendant in this suit, since its interests will necessarily be affected if the proposed amendment should be adopted. Such an amendment to its charter would be permanent and effective long after the present city councilmen have ceased to hold office, and the city would be compelled to incur the expense of mailing a copy of the proposed amendment to every qualified voter in the city and the additional expense of holding the election. And the point made by appellants, that the city councilmen, made defendants here, have no personal interest to be effected by the granting of the petition for mandamus, emphasizes the necessity of making the city a defendant, since it would be unjust to them to be adjudged to pay costs of the suit defended solely in the interest of the city. O'Keefe v. Robison,
For the reasons noted, all assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. *569