*1 Fеbruary 27th, people from all the we were dealing with, and we took our deposits, bank which were our sales and Mr. Davis stated me satisfactory, upon and I relied his statement” policy inventory required an year least once in each calendar twelve months of the last if such has been and within inventory preceding taken, provides, if inventory taken, has not been one shall be thirty days taken within the datе of policy, policy otherwise the entire be null and void. policy inventory was void because the clause complied had not been with. The evi above dence was admissible to show not invеntory thirty an taken been about fire, copy before the but also to show a appellant’s adjuster, of same was furnished inventory, together and that said invoices of with the goods purchased Januаry 24, 1928, damage, the date of the removal February 27, 1928, loss, the date of the fire together appellee’s deposits during bank period, by appellee appel were used adjuster arriving lant’s аt'the value of property totally destroyed by 'the fire. reasonably we think was a accurate method arriving totally at the value of the stock destroyed, and was at least sufficient rebut appellant’s evi contention totally dence that stroyed the value of the stock de $3,500 guess. was mere Said evidence was admissible. appellant’s We have considered all of as- signments, and, finding errоr, no reversible judgment of the trial affirmed. (No. 8229.)
MILLER v. UVALDE CO.
Court of Civil Texas. San Antonio. June
Rehearing 16, 1929. Denied Oct. Foster, Foster, Phil John J. B. Ben F. Fos-
ter, Boggess, Lowrey, La and Rio, Crosse all of & appellant. Terrell, Davis, Hall, McMillan of San An- & tonio, appellee. SMITH, Miller, appellant, Charles J. owns property city street, Martin in the paved whiсh was ordered city council, expense abutting property, and owners proportion of one-third two- the usual *2 404 effect, may prescribe conceded, provisions, thirds, respectively. the tеrms charter is in It certificates, payment leading up proceedings manner of of those that all including and and to ihe provisions assignable long so as such do not contravene the issuance of certifi- regu- against property or Prior of the Constitution statutes. those cates lar. was ny, the owners were adoption against appellant to to pal corporations Home Amendmеnt Rule The the certificate issued Compa- assigned appellee, munici rule was that the Constitution the to Uvalde the powers specific provid- could exercise no and for It is a sum. exprеssly granted by legislative certificate, in in ordi- ed the as as the well issuance, whereas, authorizing amend the under of that that the nance its Act, powers Enabling payable, as and those follows: ment the amount thereof shall enlarged of or to all not date were prohibited by “All in from embrace cash within ten certifying completion Engineer or statute. the Constitution of certificate of said work and or said City, 356, by State, acceptance Le R. 190 S. v. 80 Tex. Cr. its the Gois days after W. of construction ten 724. And under that in cash rule one-sixth within city acceptance, completion of Rio had the bal- it power clear that and and the is the assign provide payable equal to charter that install- m its in five annual ance spe certificates, pursuance three, ments, one, of two, five in four and able issued in duе may accept- improvements, years date, respectively, said cial for local of assessments ance, payable privilege deferred to be in installments of said owners made tо the maturity maturities. installments before of said authority and upon payment interest.” Under of the constitutional of all accrued ap- adopted legislative grant city only presented in of Del Rio оf law the The concerning provision following pellant’s and his first in the charter is embraced brief body controversy: of proposition governing The in “Section that “the the matter dominion, City operating сorporation, a municipal under exclusive Del Rio shall have a charter as was of under, in, jurisdiction City with- is over and the of Del control and the to streets, * * * special City, streets, public power of and- create a out to certificate installments, any public improvement payable provide the unless of in the assessment * * * * * * same, authority by grants paving, to expressly the Charter charge аnd im- payable such cost of the the to make same and estate, issued, abutting against provements all the real of the so if such a certificate is installments the date of the face for a years such proportional of to number feet the of barred become though im- the to be on street on the even real estate against proved, by fixing tate, real es- are deferred lien а thereof such installments charge personal against own- longer period the of a time.” and according city estate, assess- short, to that the real is such In it of ** *; assignable authority and specially issue in law to therefor levied without certificates property by ordinance, provide signable of as- owner the issuance in which the option in given covering payment charged of of is the certificates the therewith n ” ing inor amount thereof said cost. payments. is as- It of deferred was also in said “Sec- installments It charter: appears granted by appellant, rights to it All to and tion 82. cities оf Five Thousand general reserved serted true, provision population the and charter that the statutes city Texas, toas oth- are silent the acted laws of under which the State herein, shall cеrtificates which such out be reserved the the terms be erwise set though by property fully operative paid City con- is it as shall be as authority express specifically without such tended that the herein sеt forth.” power attempting pursuance provi- had no In council of these may adopted made in install- such that ments, sions the an assessment providing maturities. at deferred Ordinance certificatе vez’y for the issuance provisions controversy, Under Home which embraced the prescribed ordinance, Amendment the state Constitution terms in that
Rule (article 5), Legislative 11, En and of the set § out above. abling 1175, hold, (sections then, 1 and art. Rev. We con- Act certificate 1925) pursuance passed authorizing amend to the St. formed ordinance is- ment, (of embracing suance, powers class a exerсised cities Rio) power (to powers granted were were be ordinance wifhin through appropriate provi by to cities and statutes. exercised sions) the Constitution streets, pave portion inquiry assess narrowed conten- thus to the against by appellant that, notwithstanding costs thereof owners tion made abutting upon property streets, granted powers provision in the cer- tificate, giving аppellant as issue the costs him. obligation payable owners’ amount the the it improvement future, expressly assessed was void because not au- conceded, It to be seems least thorizеd charter. clear, appears reached the to be the exercise We have conclusion that express powers city, through governing these had the board here Constitution, question. intеntion to make the the owners of the into question, special city charter, assess- Act, Enabling assessment intrust to the of the oyer proceeding It is was void. city city thereunder the streets the whole cоntrol pro- including thereof, had notice of the conceded *3 ceeding, ample opportunity apportionment was assessment and come in and contest assessment before" betwеen costs owners, of was Aside the issuance made. academic presented, point we raised of the lat- conclude as. apparent overruled, liability no must be since had actual Thеre is ter’s legislative therefor. opportunity and an in ob- the notice or charter intent heard jection to the assessment before it was made. form of such nor method original decision, pre- payment, ought We adhere to the with and it time of holding additional overrule the motion those details this this omission sumed that were left to the discretion of rehearing. govern- always, ing board, subject, to review and'cor- exercise rection eases unreasonable power. discre- In the exercise this pay- tion, the or, cash, option be made could MUTUAL FIRE CO. v. CONTINENTAL INS. run- (No. 1876.) WALLES. period years, ning fur- of five over Court of Civil of Texas. Beaumont. property owner ther reserved to the July 23, 1929. any time it off these installments at that, pleased period; him aft- within said provision concerning all, fixed that it should time or method comрleted period. We are of within said opinion not exceed the council did charter, and that complain merely property owner cannot be- arbitrarily council, re- instead causе quiring cash, him to' the assessment option of it all to him the subject in future option to holder’s declare of default amount due event the installments when ment of one or more of due. any pay Appellant defaulted years, and some for more than two expiration period ap- after the months amount, pellee to mature the whole elected brought this thereon. con suit that, was not tends because the suit years, the whole cause action within two by limitation, since -the was barred payment,' to extend the time no general interrupt thus statutes that, held of limitations. The trial court maturing to the installmеnt more as two years prior to institution of than suit, appellee maining barred, re not as to the but that, installments. We conclude mature election to the absence years prior obligations, more than all the suit, limitations to the commencement of begin in to run as to would maturity or stallments until until such election, and the trial so held. judgment is affirmed. Rehearing. Motion for On rehearing appellant In his motion for point that, the fundamental
raises because provide for notice did