Young v. City of Colorado

174 SOUTHWESTERN proval void, especially the debt is not where the existence disputed. COLORADO. v. CITY OF YOUNG Municipal cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see 8080.) (No. Dig. Dig. 138-140; Corporations, Cent. Dec. §§ <S=>51.] Appeals (Court Worth. Ft. of Texas. of Civil Rehearing, Municipal — Corporations <@=>51 On Motion for 1915. Feb. 6. Dis- 1915.) op City Receivership—Approval March solved — Claims. — Municipal Corporations <@=>51 Dis- 1. approving order, An a claim of creditor City —Receivers—Statutes. solved city, of a order an dissolved taken in connection with Sayles’ 1914, art. is, appointing city, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. a receiver of the authorizing any 1080, city pointment ed in at least three a question dissolved effect, judgment, precludes any creditor of a ap- apply liability city. to the district having post- receiver, and a after Municipal ' cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see county, places public in the Dig. Corporations, Dig. 138-140; Dec. Cent. §§ city, notices stat- in the one of which shall be <®=>51.] application, when the substance of the Municipal Corporations <@=>51 before may the same will be whom 7. —Liabili- ty require por op appoint a does Debts Predecessor. posted under the direction city, incorporated notices should A applicatión, of notices were embracing city, of a receiver of a posted by proper territory pending receivership pro- same ceedings, length manner, time be- and for a sufficient is liable for the debts of the dissolved complied hearing, with, city. fore the the statute valid. of a receiver was Municipal cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Municipal cases, Corporations, <@=>51.] Dig. Dig. 138-140; see [Ed. Note.—For other Cent. Dee. §§ Dig. Dig. 138-140; Corporations, Dec. Cent. §§ '<@=>51.] Municipal Corporations <@=>51 8. —Debts— Municipal Corporations Liability. — <@=>51 2. Dis- op (cid:127) City Appointment pending receivership proceedings solved Receiver- — Where op — city, city embracing Establishment Attack. a Claims Collateral a same ter- ritory thereby deprived incorporated, power satisfy judgment the court of dis- An order a receiver for a city, city, appears the dissolved the new must solved which recites that levy satisfy judgment. given required establishing tax to notice as an valid debt collateral had been law order claim as a a creditor’s cases, Municipal [Ed. Note.—For other see 138 n 40; city, are not Corporations, <@=>51.] Dig. Dig. Cent. Dec. §§ city. the successor of the attach eases, Municipal [Ed.- Note.—For other see <@=>143 Municipal 9. Constitutional L'aw — Dig. 138-140; Dig. Corporations, Cent. Dec. §§ Corporations <@=>51—Dissolution—Debts <S=>51.] —Impairment op Obligation Contracts <@=>312 Municipal —Statutes. 3. Constitutional Law — statute, duly incorporat- A which forbids a Corporations <@=>51 Re- —Dissolution city embracing only ed op Law —Notice. ceiver-Due Process city duly levying pay dissolved from tax Sayles’ prescribed The method Vernon’s judgment city, rendered seq., Ann. Civ. St. art. 1080 et invalid, impairing a contract with the appointment of a receiver a dissolved city. law, provided giving notice, on the notice was is due cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Constitution- length for a reasonable <@=> Law, Dig. Dig. 346-348; al Cent. §§ Dee. of time. 143; Municipal Corporations, Dig. Cent. §§ cases, see Constitution- [Ed. Note.—For 138-140; Dig. <@=>51.] Dec. Dig. 928; Dig. <@=>312; Law, al Dec. § Cent. Judgment — <@=>866 138-140; Municipal Corporations, Dig. §§ Cent. 10. Enforcement —Limi- Dig. <@=>51.] Dec. tations —Mandamus. Mandamus, to enforce a Municipal Corporations <@=>956—Lia- city by compelling tax, the collection of a bility por Debts. is in execution to> effect collect the municipal corporation 10-year lia- became ap- Where statute of limitations issued, them plicable. a tax lien to secure for bonds ble corporate within the existed cases, Judgment, [Ed. Note.—For other see by requir- limits, ing be enforced and the lien Dig. Dig. 1603-1607; <@=>866.] Cent. §§ Dec. collection of taxes on the an assessment and <@=>151 property. 11. Mandamus —Parties—Officers— Judgments —Enforcement. cases, Municipal Note.—For other see [Ed. compel mandamus Dig. 2010-2013; Corporations, Cent. Dec. §§ satisfy tax to rendered Dig. <@=>956.] predecessor, duly dissolved, which was — Municipal Corporations <@=51 necessary ceiver is not a Dis- op party. Corporations solved —Establishment Proceedings. Statutory cases, Mandamus, [Ed. Claims — Note.—For other see Dig. Dig. <@=>151.] art. Cent. §§ Ann. Civ. St. Dec. Vernon’s 1082, providing that a for a dissolved <@=>42 Impairing 12. Constitutional Law — veri- whom the claim is Obligations Right In- Contracts — allowed, fied, mark the same he finds voke Provision. court, correct, the same in the district and file Only rights one whose are invoked regular term, if no its next and at filed, is impairing obligation statute can invoke of his contract court, shall be the claim invalidity the statute. approval directory far as it relates to the the cases, next term Note.—For other [Ed. see of a claim Constitution- <@=> approval Dig. Law, Dig. premature of a claim is an al Cent. §§ Dec. and a irregularity, rendering 42.] the order Key-NumberedDigests topic see same in all and Indexes other cases KEY-NUMBER ©=>For CITY OP YOUNG- v. COLORADO <§=>43 13. <§=>43 19. Law Constitutional Law —Statutes— Constitutional —Waiver Validity Right Rights. Question. — Constitutional city incorporated Where after Ver- a person omissions, may, waive A acts or Sayles’ n a non’s seq., 1080 et Ann. Civ. St. art. right might asserted which he otherwise providing corporate ex- for abolition of under the Constitution. istence, receiver, appointment of a cases, Constitution- [Ed. other see Note.—For year, been in force for than it could more not Dig. Law, Dig. 41; <§=>43.] al Dec. § Cent. complain right con- because it denied a against city, test claims since the 14. <§=>43 Law Constitutional —Statutes— statute became a charter and its Validity Right Question. to Raise — binding on it. organized A under which has been cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Constitution- statute, and has proceeded to has do business and which Law, Dig. 41; Dig. al <§=>43.] Cent. Dec. § it, as- under cannot received benefits invalidity. — Validity Invalidity its <§=>64 sert 20. Statutes — in Part —Effect. cases, see Constitution- [Ed. other Note.—For provision invalidity The Acts 29th Dig. Law, Dig. 41; <§=>43.] al Dee. § Cent. Leg. corpo- 134, relating c. to the abolition of cities, rate existence of receiver shall <§==>43 Law 15. Constitutional —Statutes— n plead against against Validity Right not limitations demands Question. — to Raise pro- other does not invalid the render A ben- availed itself of the which has visions of the statute because the allowing aof (cid:127)efit of dissolution the statutes but an incident main by reincorporating terri- (cid:127)former act. thereof, tory, assumed control has validity may cases, Statutes, [Ed. of contract with -statutes not assail Note.—For other see against person Dig. Dig. 58-66, 195; Cent. <§=>64.] Dec. §§ city. former — Municipal Corporations <§=>18 D® 21. cases, Liability Corporation — Constitution- other see [Ed. Note.—For Facto Dig. Dig. 41; Law, <§=>43.] al Dec. § Cent. Debts. municipal cannot A. de facto Rehearing. urge invalidity a de- Motion for On in a suit to fense collect debt contracted it. <§=>312 .16. Constitutional Law —Munici- cases, §§ Municipal Dec. [Ed. Note.—For other see pal Corporations <§=>51 —Dissolution- Corporations, Dig. 4Í-44; Dig. Cent. op is. Due Law —Wiiat Process <§=>18.] Ver- a receiver under The Sayles’ Appeal Court, art. St. from sion’s Ann. Civ. District Comanche of a for a creditor County; Beall, Judge; W. W. judgment against seeking to establish against Young Action William H. ancillary city, only, and does affect not City for de- rights taxpayers Colorado. From a -the made after notice fendant, plaintiff appeals. and re- Reversed deny taxpayers pro- due does not manded, rehearing and motion for overruled. cess law. Mo.,' Louis, Skinker, K. T. cases, [Ed. see Constitution- Note.—For <§=>3Í2; Dig. Dig. Law, Sayles, Sayles ap- Sayles, Abilene, al Dec. § & Cent. Municipal Dec. Dig. 138-140; Corporations, Cent. §§ Royall pellant. J. G. Thomas Coffee Dig. <§=>51.] appellee. Smith, Colorado, Tex., both of <§=>316 Law Constitutional —Munici- pal Corporations <§=>51 —Dissolution- Young DUNKLIN, insti- J. William H. op Due Law —What is. Process against tuted suit of Colorado Sayles’ Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. judgment against munici- former revive 1082, providing that of a dis- before city must be approve it, corporation, pal solved of Colo- known as given, and in the absence city is a and to which defendant rado may contest, some enter a successor, compel it, by writ of manda- and to establishing as valid debts payment mus, judgment. of that taxes deny taxpayers law, does Judgment not rendered in taxpayers right are not defendant, has appeal any judgment rendered pealed. the receiver on a claim which a filed, appeal. trial was without the aid has been for the receiver The jury, findings and conclusions cases, of a fact [Ed. Note.—For other see Constitution- Law, Dig. Dig. <§=>316; al § Cent. Dec. appear correct- of law in the record. The Municipal Corporations, Dig. 138-140; Cent. §§ challeng- findings fact ness of the Dig. <§=>51.] Dee. party. either ed <§=>205, 18. Constitutional Law municipal 249 —Mu- separate There have been five nicipal Corporations <§=>51 —Receiver- corporations, name of the first under the Special Privileges — Equal Protection op and the last four un- “Town of Colorado” the Law. The “City Colorado,” statute that a the name of all of der plead of a against cannot limitations attempted created, to be cre- which were demands asserted general ated, virtue of stat- granting special privilege invalid as by spe- creditors, equal state, nor a denial to the them and none of utes protection to all applicable history Their follows: cial charter. is as creditors debtors of the same class. “Town as the of Colo- first was chartered The cases, Note.—For other [Ed. see Constitution- incorporated compli- rado,” and was Dig. Law, 591-624, 710; Dig. al §§ Cent. Dec. February 25, 1882, the statutes on ance with under <§=>205,249; Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. 138-140; Dig. Dec. §§ <§=>51.] of the Revised Stat- tit. Digests topic Key-Numbered <§=>For cases see and Indexes KEY-NUMBER SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER becoming 1S79, Stat., effective Yernon’s ute charter incorpo- changes March' rated consisted of thus so made the amendment N. all of section the former article the names of required petition, N. W. voters were of section while section ½ ½ Railway only 26, 45, & Pacific Com- the article the names of 25 new voters block Texas county. required pany petition, survey, so were Mitchell The town to the and under 21, article, former act until November in order to abolish cor- created continued to 1882, majority by poration, at- council resolution two-thirds of the vot- when the town incorporate territory tempted required, as ers while in arti- the same were the amended simple majority provisions S40 cle was article all that under the was neces- sary. changes operated by of 1879. It The of the Revised Statutes made 1883, May, validity proviso as a until amendment was the addition of a under when, charter nothing adopting suspicious becoming of that in the act amend- incorporation, repeal an election incor- ment should be construed as to or the last any porate July 1, pro- act of 1881 as under the otherwise affect viding lages statute of the state 103), by (Acts Reg. incorporation was vil- c. ordered of towns 17th and 1883, county purposes having county judge 13, on June for school less qualified petition This than 200 of 50 voters. inhabitants. After that decision territory Supreme include other addi- the re- was to Court town Colorado origi- territory by operations original covered tional sumed under its charter town, embracing, did, town, as it all of as a continued such nal sections and as elected officers and 44, 45, 26, operating July Texas & Pacific as and block such town until county. Railway Company survey 2, charter, 1891, in Mitchell when it surrendered its resulted, provided Sayles’ 540, incor- in The election the method article poration, State, 1887, result was declared St. referred to in Harness Civ. v. county judge Í, 1883, July 3, supra, incorporated Octo- on On and at time corporation named, territory ber last be- the same that was covered corporation, original the third issued certain sew- ac- town as erage drainage aggregating provisions bonds cordance with the article (cid:127) which, together 27, with sum of one as created 1885. The thus amended March unpaid coupons certain thereto, interest attached control all the former assumed Young, property, H. William continued in un- existence suit, acquired August 7, 1895, holds. In Au- this gust, 1889, quo now til which cor- on date the (cid:127) proceedings poration dissolved, were ac- warranto last formed was 617a, provisions Harness and oth- filed ers, the state cordance with the of articles corporation, Sayles’ officers last-named 617b, 617e, 18, 12, tit. c. purpose validity to test 1895, the of of which was 1897, enacted incorporation. appearing 1077-1079, Yer- now articles. as state, district this Court, 566, in favor of the Sayles’ court was non’s Tex. Civ. Stat. From affirmed was our incorporation date of the abolition State, in Harness Tex. as shown February 1907, 7, until By 13 S. W. 535. decision was formerly was of Colorado constituted attempted and third held that the second in- incorporated. February 1907, 7, But corporations invalid, origi- were that the territory, wit, 41, N. section the same of section ½ incorporation March, 1882, nal town still 45, N. W. of section block ½ holding existed. reasons for Two Railway 26, vey, Company sur- & Texas Pacific assigned: being The first article 340 reincorporated county, in- Mitchell Statutes, Revised enacted present city Colorado, and such 1881,did not confer board of aider- corporation acting char- under that now power change original men the into fourth, town appears first, ter. Thus it and fifth second and third were sewerage city; second, original and, valid, incorporations while dissolved, town charter had not been first as invalid, and that the could and cle 540 Leg. should have done drainage under arti- bonds, one of which (Acts In 1885 statutes. Young, 19th by plaintiff were issued owned 60) c. article was amended and corporation attempted to be chartered invalid in tioned above. the decision above referred to the third men- language was used: corporation March, 1882, “The created By still the Revised Statutes article exists and if those who live within that desire Sayles’ Civil Statutes shown reincorpórate enlarged powers village provided a when town or incorporating conferred on cities 17, they may compliance corporation by abolished, provided do tit. with should amendment of March 1885.” property belonging all the article amended, appears Article as so now should be turned over as the Sayles’ county article 1 Yernon’s treasurer, and that the commission- Oiv. Stat. provide Article which Civil Statutes of should ers’ court same, disposition the article referred to in that de- the sale cision, slight changes corpora- some of the debts settlement 1897, appears amendment in tion, should have now as article ON CITY YOUNG v. COLORADO power property. from the in- and collect tax recover Article village in the same reads: the town habitants of “Any person, corporation, would be en- firm or manner as the itself town, shall, claim within amended article was titled do. That six months from the Leg. 1891, 77, so as include with- c. Acts ceiver, to him a statement of towns, cities, operation well claim, duly verified, which, amount of such correct, voluntarily abolished, he finds will file mark allowed and also de who had been court; same in said district next at its by any corporations declared void facto term, if no filed as herein- jurisdiction, competent or which shall provided, shall be operate functions of exercise cease to government. and shall thereafter be considered debt, against town; provid- a valid Light Co. v. Kee- Electric ed, however, that no such account claim or nan, our S. W. against city approved such shall be allowed or provisions in contained Court held that the by the city the receiver of such of without notice county imposed upon presentment having given, the thereof that article first by publication any newspaper, in in some duty , levying a tax the of commissioners city pre- the town or sented, where is filed or municipal pay debts of weeks, for four successive and in case’ unconsti- been declared void was which had newspaper published there be no in such town by posting printed or then written or no- was the At that time tutional. presentment claim, tice of the of such to be by Legislature statutory provision county at the court house of door outstanding of debts for collection city in which said town or is situated for four municipal that had weeks of of allowance said claim notice, published account. And such statutory modes, whether by any of the been abolished posted, or shall state the name and residence statutory was enacted until and no other creditor, of the the amount and date of said in of for the collection year such debts account, claim and curred. and for what passed any In case such receiver finds claim when the presented unjust, to him in whole inor 134, p. act, appearing Acts of part, finding thereon, shall indorse his and he inclusive, 1080 to and articles may claimant, return same to the with the who file Statutes, except court, accept Tex. Civ. Vernon’s district he desires to finding receiver, of the and such claim for by Acts 1087 was so of article by may the amount allowed be the receiver require as to the assessment amended collection by upon the said acted court as other claims. of all taxes ordered court any protest by any taxpayer city In case of said county against any tax as- or be to be collector, filed said to be levied town claim filed in together court, with a bond of sure- sufficient the re- instead of sessor and ties, pay tablishes approved court, be said that he will 1080 reads as follows: ceiver. Article in all costs of suit case said claimant es- having any city town “In all where or any cases full, his claim in in state in court corporate had a un- may theretofore valid existence., thereon, which he court sue then such district Texas, of has abolished the laws the state der approve shall refuse to such claim until provid- corporate manner said existence by judgment, it shall have been re- established any city by law, or in all cases where ed competent covered thereon in state court having corporate town valid existence jurisdiction; and such suit to establish such may corpo- laws, their such rate or town court of the hereafter abolish any claim, whole, or claim disallowed or in existence, any any such creditor may brought against receiver, be may apply judge district legal who shall make all defenses such in, judicial district, such trying claim; but the court said claim here- appoint- may situated, or be for the town to hear authorized and consider material corporation; and, ment of a for said receiver may be, may urged been, defense against or having posted public up in after at least three except claim, limitation, said county places in the wherein such or town may claim, prior thereto, such have been located, shall or one of which be in reduced to but such shall stating town, the notices the substance written considered, upon prima be such trial as facie application, when before whom the justness Any of the evidence such claim. judge, same will be such either in term judgment upon recovered such receiver vacation, may appoint person time or as such a suitable such or town shall al- be corporation, such and shall approved the receiver and lowed trict court wherein but, the dis- fix ceiver the amount bond to be such receivership pending; probable in at least double amount upon all suits claims wherein property of the or value indebtedness court, were filed the the bond town, or conditioned faithful shall liable claimant costs of performance officer, of his duties as such suit, unless he recovers full delivery money paying for the over and of all approval amount said district which he asked the property coming and ceiver, ceive into his hands as such re- and, court; upon suits claims party parties entitled to re- rejected part by receiver, the claimant same, approved bond suit, for the shall be liable he than was allowed costs of the unless judge making appointment; same, to- greater his claim for establishes amount gether filed appointment, order shall be by the receiver.” with, in, recorded the minutes of said duty 1086 makes Article court the clerk of the district court (cid:127) wherein such or town is situated.” appointing provide the receiver for the By legally payment duty article 1081 it is of all established made the receiver, town, qualified by giving to determine the required bond, claims, priority appoint- to return order a and to sale of court ing inventory property receiver, him property, etc., all ject sub- hands purpose, received him and under sale for such order to direct may necessary pay to institute such suits as such receiver to such claims. SOUTHWESTERN July 9, petition On for the Article 1086a reads: pointment being property money proceeds filed before “In case indebtedness, pay then presented are insufficient the district to Hon. Jas. request duty said court at it of be the Thirty-Second judi- judge Shepherd, L. any creditor, first at the term district, cial ty in which district Mitchell coun- year, all the a tax in each estate, personal situated, situated and real but that recused him- pre- town, as within limits acting by self from reason of fact viously incorporated, on the first taxpayer awas of Colorado. January, exempt preceding from taxation August 6, 1906, petition state, On under the constitution and laws discharge indebtedness, sufficient to Harper, Eorty- to Hon. Jas. R. by existing allowed law for to exceed the rate such judicial district, Eourth who indorsed there- incorporated purposes cities and towns.” granting an order in cause No. In December appoint- of a receiver and Rankin,” Rankin, styled Robert “Ex A. B. Robertson as such White, Young, H. Alonzo and Alfred William fixing his bond as receiver to the sum ,B. Connable, plaintiffs, filed a given by of son which bond was Robert- county praying Mitchell the district court of Judge Harper on Au- a receiver gust 30,1906. passing, be said that Colorado, the same parties neither claimed this suit corporation municipal the fourth mentioned Harper Judge that the order of history petition, above. as re- that legal effect; being virtually that conceded municipal above, cor- first the four cited of jurisdiction he was without to make it. On porations out, issuance of also the set was 4, 1907, petition presented January was by drainage sewerage bonds in 1883 and I-Iiggins, judge Hon. Cullen C. of Thir- ownership incorporation, one of of ty-Ninth judicial third district, pre- then who was Young, by H. William siding those bonds judge as the of the of district court by city county, issuance hall application of bonds also Mitchell and the corporation building city appointment of granted by aof receiver was city; sewerage Judge Higgins court, hall that both and open in said who then and by drainage plaintiffs appointed were bonds owned there A. B. Robertson receiver of suit; that all of said bonds were sold Acting that of Colorado. under applied proceeds appointment, and the qualified said Robertson as such intended; they pro- by giving required by uses for were receiver order which bond sewerage drainage prescribed taking by law, ceeds of the and bonds and oath by Judge Higgins applied ap- which was bond the construction of a sewer- proved. drainage system, Judge Higgins age proceeds making The order of and city and the applied is as follows: hall bonds were the erec- hall; improve- that all of tion of said County, “In District Court of Mitchell Texas. territory made within cov- ments parte “Ex Robert Rankin et al. No. 1101. original Colorado, wit, ered town of January “Saturday, 4, 1907. 41, N. N. section section 44 and W. of½ ¼ day “On this came on to be heard the above alleged section 45. It further was cause, appearing entitled and numbered to the court that and it petition petition cause, in this was embraced in the presented judge to Hon. D. James Shepherd, original only territory town was the that was Thirty-Second judicial Texas, of the district of occupied actually ever and inhabited as chambers, July wit, on to town; Shepherd words, the.territory thereupon add- said James D. indorsed petition foregoing said as follows: ‘The original attempted ed to the town in- petition al., of Robert Rankin et actually in 1883 was never oc- pointment Colorado, of a receiver of the cupied According as a Tex., having town. presented inhabited me, been I am of the opinion matter, that I am recused allegations petition, both further when the in the action hereafter to be and considered original town resumed control the de- receiver, being resident Court in cision of State, Harness v. taxpayer Colorado, Tex., of the as it formerly existed, being directly ownership control and it assumed affected by the the action receiver under the acts of municipality, all the includ- Twenty-Ninth Degislature, chapter 134, ap- sewerage system drainage con- proved April 17, 1905, and it is considered and incorporation July structed here certified the court this 1906.’ thereupon afterwards, wit, “And on the fourth which petition August 1, 1906, present- the said was was ownership assumed control and dissolved Harper, judge Hon. R. ed to James Thir- sewerage drainage ty-Fourth judicial Texas, district of who there- system, properties pe- indorsed order on as other as well mu- said tition, to wit: nicipality, and that reason said thereof “ foregoing petition having pre- been ‘The last-named became liable for such vacation, appearing me sented to drainage sewerage bonds, required as well by chapter notice as Daws complied with, obligations of 1906 has been and that the above. In the mentioned Thirty-Second judicial judge is the district, who petition receiver judge judicial of the district under the act of 1895 voked above refer- in which Colorado is situ- sitting disqualified ated, from to. case: red y. YOUNG CITY OF COLORADO judge of the Mitchell appears hereby by 134 of his bond fixed at dered Acts ing was heretofore Harper, district of district court trict court of the orado, ed and record “Judge with Hon. C. C. is the ing sufficient granted, Texas qualified pointed and that the district of the judges, and judicial to me tice and his bond is ing Mitchell the Texas, the shall have ceiver and made Thirty-Fourth so entered his that ately qualification, and that the Governor It case; and the said ties, record. ated, when this cause was called judge receiver shall have all the on Texas.’ of the Acts of 1905. afterward, James said A. B. Robertson as term of the Judge Smoot, “It is therefore “And it further On June “And it further receiver law him, the court: Thirty-Ninth judicial now district, application as Robert the said Hon. which said bond is here now Court said notified the in therefore judge Mitchell bond, designated the Acts of 1905. who is the required F. M. R. as it is receiver of the former Texas, Presiding Judge is in the minutes of that enter these presented district of county, Tex., judge county, thereupon Hon. James R. open court, in form and same been judge; disqualified granted, Thirty-Fourth me Texas, all Harper approved approval Texas, 25, 1907, Judge Higgins, acting of Mitchell Rankin Higgins, judge judge of the district court of an that A. as thereupon Thirty-Second judicial wit, further Thirty-Second Burns, of Mitchell the former sitting having bond, disqualification of Colorado is approved, exchange judicial given county, Tex., Thirty-Ninth of Robert Rankin et al. before provided by chapter is by chapter presented required by law, ordered as is fixed at bond as ordered, adjudged, made Hon. C. C. designated the said A. B. judicial Governor and, who is or town'of Colorado is situ- and said bond appearing to me appearing powers and A. B. Robertson of Col- hereby approved James et al. “Cullen C. proceedings Hon. Texas, ^[*] * * of the B. and J. S. as August 30, 1906, the said in from provided so notified both of said the said Governor the'following County, Thirty-Fourth Robertson of district came on to be heard per amount, required required Thirty-Second judicial $60,000 upon appointment district of and the clerk of the Harper, it district Judicial L. powers required by chapter James L. county, Tex., the district to Hon. James R. conferred of the trying 134 of the Laws of rate upon shown to the court bond and he Cullen C. appearing case. is try to the court James R. Shepherd Higgins, Judicial District the bond of judge of record in this he is said situated, Higgins, wire of his dis- McCall as sure- hereby appoint- Robertson hav- registered by the receiver as such. as of Texas.” of the District by the petition court: been Colorado, said bond is as trial, conferred said receiver in Thirty-Ninth the case and judge bond which and decreed publication the state of District Texas, hereby ap- 134 of the city Texas, entered of district of court doth now establish as a valid and sub- heretofore exchanged which the upon Shepherd, law, presented giving and said case, Colorado, Colorado, this date order as court of in which Higgins, that no- the dis- immedi- Harper, judicial at adjoin- is dis- of the stating of H. B. is or- found a re- laws, who said him and on, finding giv- the up- as be same date was filed allowance entation for the sake of just, and No. weeks, with statement num from bears interest at the in the case of Ex be and the same is 1, 1893; age and said receiver has indorsed his same was ed to the receiver of rado, has been incurred, rado: of 6 which bears interest at the rate of 6 creed sisting and that in accordance with the upon presented creed going of which bears interest at the rate of 6 cent, cent. $40 of which bears interest at the rate of 6 dicial District terest at- the rate 25, 1907, and, by A. D. est at the rate of 8 1, 1889; $40 of which bears interest at the rate October and decreed October and the law and the port receiver the 'advertisement carefully tition “Ex “In trict “And “The above and “Fifth. Claim in “Wherefore “Cullen O. “On this- The claims for other June page this honorable annum from October trial, bonds 6of per claim, per claims have been which the receiver acted per at court of Mitchell and notice of this 25th * and, ^[*] * * receiver Term, 1907, Tuesday Colorado, Tex., the 478 down evidence subsisting cent, District Court of Mitchell Co. Tex. when ** considered per in said annum from April 1, 1892; is further annum from October duly given $40 as shown thereof and the read said claim of after such character, Robert Rankin the account and -for what oath, rate said court on June per Higgins, cent, which amount per came A. B. per this cause the court that and referred to in day $40 is court, of cent, brevity. newspaper published order, judgment, which bears interest at foregoing minutes, beginning $40 of and said claim shall be so Texas, Presiding.” court at the annum from hereby approved per claims cent, made his first ordered; that said claims are said dissolved rate of ordered, adjudged, per presented approved by of which per just the amount notice, stating as per duly Judge the center annum from October April June, it is to the the court and the justness 1, 1891; hall $40 cent, per Robert Rankin et but are omitted here of William H. drainage cent, required by which the above and aas whole. annum from October county, presentment report having Colorado, appointed Robertson, order of the publication the rate of 6 $1,000 et al. No. adjudged, ordered, adjudged, annum from of which and contains the Thirty-Ninth June bonds were also A. D. 1907. per four consecutive per filed in bears interest and the evidence per to the receiver regularly the said findings legally April 1, 1890; January' 1, 1890; bears interest evidence, together report 25, 1907, finding $40 of which cent, annum inme annum from Tex., and sewer- bears inter- as a annual said order page 480, per bears all been of Colo- of Colo- present- date of per thereof $40 whole, Young of his there- report claim, name, there- made called valid, April pres- term, cent, fore- open with $40 dis- Ju- per per- the an- al., de- de- pe- of ' SOUTHWESTERN n ofin a given newspaper, ef- think it been in the court’s not could have as recited order, report fect for the reasons hereinafter stated. verified judgment, [1] It will noted that in the act of in connection the receiver. That authorizing of a receiver with the order provided dissolved town or relied on subsisting judg- present a creditor— case as a valid and “may apply judge proper man- of the district ment' and basis as judicial district, in which such or prayed present damus Colorado, may situated, town revived, after the same has corporation; and, a receiver for said ing posted up hav prayed public places for. at three least which such or town defend- One of the contentions made located, one of which shall be in said or appoint- present is that case ant ment of stating town, written notices substance judgment of application, the same time son as such receiver when and before whom service, legal judge, will be either in term were without vacation, appoint per suitable n either of Colorado corporation.” successor, was chartered post provide The act who shall does February 7, 1907, than five months more notices, long nor for how the same shall and which the date of the judge posted, nor whether or party fol- suit. The to that was not lowing appears application shall be whom the first judge’s findings in the trial hearing. day fix con- in this suit: fact requires that, events, the act tends the notices to be notice was “I" find public relator, posting up posted at three under the direction Tex., places county, one of which in Mitchell day after he has first set the the limits of the was within hearing, affirmatively appears and that it Colorado, to wit: Judge Hig- from the recitals the order of ' “ ‘Public Notice. gins appointing the receiver that no notices “ hereby given the inhabitants ‘Notice direction, under his since No. section embraced within application was heard recitals show forty- forty-one, No. north half of section day Judge by Judge Higgins on quarter four, No. of section the northwest county, forty-five, Texas, way Shepherd’s disqualifications Mitchell in block No. certified to surveyed by Rail- the Texas & Pacific Higgins Judge Governor and June, 30th Co. That on the Judge Shepherd exchange pointed to be heard will soon thereafter as can we preside court of Mitchell over the district the dis- county, praying for the court Mitchell Judge Higgins, trict county. January 4, 1908, On corporation appointment of a receiver of the presiding judge of the district court as Mitchell organized, to include the above heretofore so as county in min- entered order the formerly territory the known as described city application directing show the receiver to the said will that court utes of levy March, in that in the month of substance property upon a tax the and collect territory residing the inhabitants within the limits of the dissolved the territorial within corporation by the above described became name of the town city liquidate been the claims which had That Colorado. 1883, the July, 25, 1907, inhabitants of sec- month of that on June as allowed 40, 41, 44, Nos. and 45 in said tions block previ- That order recites the shown above. incorporated orado; the name of the of Col- January 4, Judge Higgins order of ous pursuance in thereafter of ordi- duly passed, $6,000.00 receiver, 1907, appointing issued the and the order nances sewerage drainage purposes bonds 1907, approving January 25, claims. the $7,000.00 hall, of bonds for the order a further recital the contains levy provided for the and collection of taxes post- parte Rankin, plaintiffs in Ex No. pay said on bonds and interest them. That undersigned copy are the said bonds became and the owners of notices, in of which contained ed the court’s out above. This interest, their and that findings case, set in and is unpaid. That in case which went from directing order, a tax court of Mitchell year pleaded by case for Court Texas in was it by the was determined organization said said town was until said courts that the the'purpose showing as- the claims void, was and that the plaintiffs in' that suit were serted being. thereupon town was still That again recognized just again and valid and reorganized, and acted as such July, 1691, judgments the month when it became established as valid Colorado, embracing appears from of Colorado as described, first herein and liable for the debts recital to that effect court’s described, first herein and that Appellee year this order affirmative- insists that 1895 the of Colorado was abolished thereof, a vote of the inhabitants given and an ly notice shows county judge county. order of Mitchell prior application hearing for a receiver “ [Signed] ‘Robert Rankin. Judge Higgins appointed him was the date Young. “‘William H. “ given by Rankin, Young, White, ‘Alonzo White. notice the and “ ” ‘Alfred B. Connable.’ copied above, Connable, was specific finding wholly There is no of fact last The order mentioned insufficient. subsequent given trial that no other notice of court term was made application appointed for the at which the receiver a the one n receiver, been, subsequent if even there had term of court at do we and also CITY ON YOUNG-v. COLORADO tended that such such a the a presumed ther, 1905 for and herein of step to that parte 469, notice had been Tex. Civ. ties there “The quired debt 1907, establishing is not Tex. Even from the receiver had notice appointed which must obtain fore sufficient to ments appointing ing quired by fact that the collateral attack now made tion was the recitals Higgins der those orders. the notices were ment was not sufficient which the order of the claims that case diction to they the order last mentioned contains recital only We, therefore, reasonable [3] This IVe are discuss posted Constitution, not that notice as 13 W. 209; that the method the notice remained We are of the State of Rankin of the statute by to run. Laws S. order wore inconsistent with the necessary period receiver and the order of those terms the court App. 96,118 record that the length cited; the receiver that the notices should Heck & conclusion under the direction change the contention made January appellee, given. satisfy giving application. as valid and length accomplished. the dissolved 51, never come to last appellee. did not particular laws,” of law should be said Texas,” If those orders so, January 4, 1907, of time. We is not identified in fully complied that order made hold that the order posted by plaintiffs if such of time before the 16 notice referred to was that act the plaintiff’s Treadway proper mentioned. Baker v. opinion, further, regardless required by chapter 134, himself notice June Am. are of the requirements relative vary S. renders prescribed within the had been collateral attack made opinion, nevertheless that fact time, city. run conclusive would be W. as citations are re notice was view of the further validity Gibbs v. Judge notice so found to manner In other as a Wharton a receiver would 188, that the city, claim as a valid Rep. subsisting debts authorities v. that “it Martin, and it 1907, approving Judge heard After legal with. lost all further, Eastburn, the name of Furthermore, Rankin was in opinion, Higgins, presumption given unnecessary giving prior preliminary plaintiffs of the order by meaning no and for a Scales, the order. by Judge words, the Acts evidence must adjourn- Higgins’ appoint appellee effect authori require appears that or 75 Tex. applica- County appear express tration or day in Ex recital as re valid, juris- valid fur be in 25, the 57 54 if rado, valid debt erty Wis. contest of the the further cause the court the would in by plaintiff datory at the next Hallmark, If already acquired jurisdiction the lecting that the receiver after that next therefore insists are unable to only. of the other term ceiver Drainage taxes approving plaintiff’s claim, the same limits ble for shall mark be trict no ferred whom a claim is Cye. 17, said claim shall then all by requiring and shall debt against any sonal [6, ^{[5] [4]} correct, following day, statute, provision approval one in fact would be an 7] situated within court, authorize a If the Section At all 1101, not proceeding to that, taxes to power to, appellee connection with the secure them a Young day Dist. v. convened, the district invalid. With this the extent of plaintiff’s action in 28 Tex. thereafter be considered a valid St., provides render article 1082 of Vernon’s the same findings of court. be filed as hereinafter there cited. “and at its next a suit the court could approval which had been term of Ex drainage events, has one situated Cyc. agree. for had been the claim to the-order of issued assessment and collection of purpose pay the claim property. approve personal Higbee, in which the effect of and the the statute else, the order instituted thereunder. 34 due notice by and the suit of Ex under the rem to enforce such lien not term court presented duly claim allowed, approved by if it could file sought nature of an adminis By We court, approval the trial court that no we cannot act irregularity only, tax lien existed within the Rankin. McNeill v. nor to plaintiff’s it, or town.” filed the Salter depriving of 1891 that a corporate' debts of that believe 149 S. valid bond was evdr judgment against there and in order sewerage levying was entered on was Indeed, regular did the act of and not at the void, filed over the abolished, contention was the order was very claim at v. he finds it to debt held W. believe that became receiver to is no rather premature, Hilgen, said court judgment, the claim was especially said that provided, above re corporate directory limits of letter of view of made and col of Colo term, the dis no verified by before bonds, claim prop man upon city. that per nor lia we re 40 174 S.W.—63 SOUTHWESTERN pellee

porated rights ities. in in the amount of his pending ing purchaser poration Wiley, our incorporation appellee deprived nate to the nicipal judgment, it has fact that less the new in power trict court suit, including new limits, cited. less forbidden the rules would suit, not understand to been effect to render assess and collect by correctness sumed tract Municip. a dissolved satisfying such aside from tablished substantially Revised successor corporation suit after its corporation is Collum, Shapleigh Sup. Quanah [8, questioned. which the pay reason the debts Supreme Court held that article 541of the the act of applicable during corporation precludes 9] receivership proceedings. a burden his Ct. corporation with the applicable unconstitutional and with occupies essentially under such Even if the the new have the liabilities corporation, 92 S. W. If, debt it the same statute vested v. 25 Tex. Statutes judgment against deprive 957, Corp. tax of the old rule of v. San of the fact levy that White, corporation, as contended rights judgment, impaired plaintiff Young’s con power was not made a receivership real 42 new incorporation. by a vote of its owed power vol. from pendency judgment. assumed city, the former L. that court of the did statute, equity, foregoing taxes claim, present same, Angelo, incorporation estate tax appellee itself for the receiver which takes the 1, 315; effect to Ed. 310. Indeed we do question plaintiff’s Young. appellee’s purchaser App. 83, through § that after such incor levy and authorities there the former notwithstanding subject inhabitants city. McQuillin committed impose upon a by appellee, when the the burden of mail under the well-es pay 167 U. S. same would satisfy plaintiff’s obligation receivership was and collect conclusion of law void, in is treated here. Latta did In corporation, deprive rendered And if Ranken v. 28 W. pending Xoung its receiver 60 S. Having occurred debt. Young’s citizens. brief that the to position party pendente suit, not have the was covered are subordi- to its liabil liability S. thereby party Hence levy territorial expressly neverthe power same, city, W. itself to place of pending City city for the the dis The in- been instituted in form 646, in that the to the as the there- incor- W. taxes bond, have such pay mu But Mc lite tax the was un as- sented in its itation on 17 or of of v. preme corporation through Ringling owing by his for the reason that was only statutory such debts 88 provisions tion of debts can be in ute ing upon pairing obligations tempted voked perform waive tional because no under become was to wise a sufficient basis for the statutes corporations remedy benefits allege collection of person may by whose been contention. dormant until the giving being, substantially, party Gyc. 791, revive the barred Gyc. necessary party City ble [12-14] [10] The the dissolution Tex. vote to prayer debt. judgment, C. A. Unconstitutionality act of laws under merely unconstitutional, 787-789. organized of Austin v. it, We Court in 1905. 34 of 10 by limitation, him C. rights case distinguished provided of its thereunder, invoked right-which he impair the duties dissolution. them.” the suit of provisions overrule provisions It is of the former law 792. “Where S. W. 552. action, appellee for that such statute City Hempstead, receivership years providing unconstitutionality 30 W. has a tax against a dissolved of their citizens were are invaded limitation remedy corporations It arm or officer Electric the first since he was votes his to S. well Cyc. creditor, Young, 8 is passage of and the writ permitted his claim lie is the Cahill, insists remedy 1907, imposed Gyc. relief, debts. levy the commissioners’ they of contract act, or omission to also cited of a statute and receive obligation since therein settled that municipal corporations the collection of debts 236-430. proceed Ex from the of its citizens with In other charters and and as that was further for the dissolution present might corporations organize creditor, Light 793. for the collection the Constitution. until the place, execution the receiver was well would'not cannot be is unconstitutional. effect of proceeding granting 99 Tex. parte Rankin, if there was other corporations the statute of that as was left statutes The decision of decided unconstitutional, before such rendered is support present statute otherwise have to do business See, also, contention Co. v. settled that of mandamus suit 193 Fed. collection of ’while statutes present suit words, statutes.- act of can invoke has not no sense unconstitu him the passage of only 172, said writ. municipal to collect the same contracts are to revive heard to apply Keenan, relating decision applica of this suit having collec to those 88 S. bind 1905, have deci stat pre lim act, Su im in at no to to 8 8 Tes.) 995 OF CITY COLORADO YOUNG- v. Law, tion of the invoke the incorporating sions benefit of the territory, assumed execution therefore in violation original opinion, property tract cluding plied ly Law, pars. 40, 41; petition. overruling exception criticism is addressed to the entire is article the upon laws above-mentioned lant owned no such lowed in from taxation under appellee immediate to its report the state and in Ex judgment, uated within sion here manding dissolution the the against awarded The trial For the reasons ^[16] error to incorporated the 1st the district court of Mitchell appointment of cross-assignment trial judgment of rendered Young, this tax is §§ the trial of this alleged by the failure of cited predecessor; appellee Appellee, having Appellee urgently parte Rankin, property, council to those statutes. the Acts of the 42, jurisdiction appellant has without On Motion court is As property have and not since and a writ of mandamus is predecessor has existing provisions bearing 43 first former satisfaction of said state, but not the limits of directing owned special the same in favor of statutes appellee (1), in his already in 10 Cent. of the United property. its action of the trial court cities and collected, Vernon’s Young, section, questions presented by both real and provides due January, 1915, reversed, indicated 43 4 Dec. sufficient Young. incorporation. a receiver. interest as shown and it was shown made a further law and control of the no is that at the time of its (2). exception to exceed of process foregoing conclusions, favor, and collect a tax appellee herein, cause, territory, has allowing overruled. availed itself Rehearing. is property insists Dig. the Constitution first which Dig. appellant, principal appellee, that same be Sayles’ party in favor of officers to sale in no towns, Constitution and not discussed cross-assignment Colorado decided Constitution orders above set of section, Constitutional Constitutional Colorado, the discharge States. This Stress personal, that appellee city provides judgment judgment law, effect, position its subject composing and when of It Tex. Civ. taking plaintiff’s belonging Colorado rendered purposes the con adverse- -sum reviving rate al- dissolu act, follows exempt posses- in said finding hereby is appel- which com- laid out, the of the sit- re in without notice and before on of of is place well ment of a lowing tended to control may, except cal law, dispense tablished St., preme they upon lowing: give making ment is satisfied” bill were not sufficient to ment L. Ed. and to preme an the other fies the demand of the has the prescribing process ments necessarily provision court, having on a court to spect” (citing, among tunity ments which the that can be tion was ment, U. tion of either in ments tions of Guthrie, appeal, R. Ct. trials, One (citing Sage Memphis, etc., constitutional demanding Ct. S. W. “Even “As the “Due “A statute “A In 10 In 5 In It In Church v. S. action, opportunity R. , 459, 50 L. Ed. Constitutions when this final may prescribe supported by hearing, see is clear Scott v. aof 361, where an decisions, Gallup are.judicial no motion to vacate the fix Co. v. Court have reference 796). Page announcement process Court provide by life, liberty, court: of procedure. power Encyclopedia Sup. 30 L. Ed. power being rights fit, Encyclopedia notices of for notice placed judgment no receiver would fourteenth 8 not essential to due receiver, yet law does not void well it equitable appointment v. so Sup. conferring special jurisdiction jurisdiction adjudged made, before Reports, p. 545, ground U. the Powers, Ct. pass upon Cox, period provisions against Reports, is afforded jurisdiction must be to be equitable proceeding far not to because Kelsey, ample, party all the evidence and the done, procedure S. supported in the hands of a receiver (citing regulate Ct. appointment the authorities: 644. rule for reasonable 744). Page jury and it 30 Tex. held, as to is entered” administrative the time grounds heard 887, for amendment of time for the constitutional 201 U. S. relief. vital. specially of United States Constitution 46 L. Ed. deems mere preserved.” before if of its failure to 121 U. S. to hear and rules of Guthrie prevent it was held that foregoing trials is not time of litigants even 8 reversing be heard. The fundamental and decisions, justify hearings Schmidt, they the time appearing United to do provisions Cyc. Civ. Sup. filing set L. Ed. incidental Rehearings, important, with full occurs the R. R. judgment when process require- in civil upon limited aof the decisions Natl. Bank v. (citing among matter a state from wholly App. procedure without due forth in the hearing; so, 1097, was not in- receivership 207). Page Ct. proceedings. states, States time before of a announce- Mich. Cen. 183 U. S. determine, the of causes limitation, 694). they for its order ample appoint- a direct that the Co., depriva- receiver appoint- of local posting 513, hearing notice; seems oppor- state- cases; judg- void” ques- cases make satis- argu- peti- Sup. they Sup. new fol- fol- 125 Su- Su- up- es- lo- all 174 SOUTHWESTERN isfaction. Young against was tiff and was plication equity sity therefor, nied the without v. anwas causes of leged by and for pressly provided tablished solved providing pearance same inal protest ed, Tex. plaintiff, established as ment rights itor, posted process shall ed claim, further bond order of petent jurisdiction. suit, ment tion judgment by default, given claim. The the absence of enter a against taxpayer was a ed Even without due article urge refuse As noted ^[17] could not Rand, notice give then four of such opinion, all Civ. it approve of such including appointment practice By at the courthouse 1936 Vernon’s contested, act ancillary bond for a receiver filed as the statute answer legal prior location of the residence provides that, notice weeks and cannot be said to taxpayers 8. W. 92 claim by judgment of the dissolved action Stat., what any approve law, to file a made article 1082 of It is a further objection already, now to the lien notices, receiver. applied n hearing. parties plaintiffs defenses city, of court. published any a receiver notice some of the default judgments, the date the demands asserted could asserted proceeding appointment costs establishing protest against that before the in no manner claim taxpayer, which of in cases causes contest, the statute duty after In the event of such of affected was made to of the statute expressly taxpayers law, any is one of the true, As the one asserted be that due presentation judgments discussion, application. and amount of receiver in a of that door of the some court incurred, may they shown in ample suit. The of action assert- Vernon’s familiar allowance the court should of the event such visions last only. the receiver to the court shall until newspaper, given, as valid abe condition that after recited urgent be sought Tex. the debts more so case required pri- payers, gives affected the The fact that the of the cred application, opportunity the dissolv- notice was the claims. to a receiver appointed claim, presented it is ex Colorado The real force it is Wm. appoint- property together the dis- right sections publica Young’s of such 'dissolv that, rule of the against and no statute Sayles’ Cotton neces- the plain- to be for a debts judg gency requiring orig than com- sat- St., ex- de- ap Aside from al- I-I. es- equitable pediency now ment of lection conferred ilege granted law, claim ture the statute suit if it demands. he has further cept passage debtor the act effect was: interpretation ed prohibiting ing person statute of statute of limitation ready 24 R. within the tion without the exempting Ct. to such visions of the ors A, 630, by the self indicates mont Trac. Co. 605, Co. v. of the act See, also, Happy operation “There L. A. creditors just right time defendant fact recited was 26 special could be said that 122 S. W. since the may constitutionally be rendered Campbell under discussion Johnson, barred act Neither can it be said that the Chowning, a reasonable basis has no S. W. right and has a debts due therefrom.” a 29 L. Ed. the act receiverships of receiver to applicable to defend upon plea is same class. that a The a dissolved meaning any all claims equal protection limitation, that act removed the bar. the enactment mentioned. previously privileges, 504; Campbell Cook, making violating the constitutional and it 486, is an receiver no that such defunct company 615; vested right v. any state of limitation. claim appeal reason v. thus receiver could not equal such creditor and a denial v. adequate him, 40 Holt, general 86 Tex. against taxpayer right recital, receivership proceedings. denial of State, Mosher, and under advice actions extraordinary right, Am. St. thus St. a statute of laws and the United defend a reasonable revive presented against right corporations the constitutional represents the receiver alone has all creditors and debt Young’s In the seventh section to determine the protection barred claim. Hence his defense recited 115 U. S. L., before the it was person was the given to take taxpayer statutes of a receiver remove the 87 S. W. 655, 57 Tex. Civ. law in force where- was a then in appeal duty any taxpayer S. & accruing v. is not 48 Y. 313. passed, Rep. denying against demands such an his due statutes class judgment F. claim was al- enactment it for an emer N. against limitation interested In held special Lodge liability 878; process S. from such immediate legislative force, can collect given plead T. R. Co basis has filed from the bar of do ordinary then the appoint- the tax- Legisla- W. 86 Tex. against portion statute appeal. limita States, assert bar of of the grant Beau so, U. since priv App. Sup. law, pro pro Ins. any col- ex- to B. y. CO MURPHY-WALKER NATIONAL SURETY CO. 997 the original opinion: following solutely ness orously this mandamus was in that misapprehension terest and ligations court cipal due tion a suit valid debt. The claim that the whole indebted- given prior ceiver. ferred recited that on more than a been enacted at apply that before whom the v. son, the statute unconstitutional, sarily we only are 196 U. S. 185 U. right R. R. Co. creditors (2) Ct. contended eoplaintiffs appellee “Right “The Presumably copy While a [19] The ^[20] binding upon Taylor, give that the Statutory are proposition the collection 229, are not claimed void, as was, 90 statute became a and interest on these bonds had been and here. On as could be of the intention to to contest the had been to Ifurthermore, days. They of the notices S. suit, yet creditors relator himself void the main was attached to the 46 L. Ed. in this here wo wish to is in no gave should be considered occurs: 325, appellee’s 466, v. since there is exhibit, 134 W. opinion years other copy insists all notice, precluding in the former municipal corporation.” Zernecke, 529, named year prior Construction, appellee, this criticism 22 S. other past statement that that was the it. of this court that the bonds we do not construe all events. On yet, certain of dissolved cities suit as 39 S. provisions purposes Sup. it would Sup. of their debts. position 1905 only that: instead of months never 339; Corry filed, House January 4, 1907, motion appellee, provisions of even an invalid debt was Ct. W. Ct. 183 U. S. pleaded it denied notice order dated apply day, did plea call nothing committing appellee if that Ins. Co. v. 297, 662, contained in our articles shall hereafter constitute the Revised to of its charter suit, not follow neces § 170. represent any petitioners stating would not principal receiver; is addressed both in Mercy would be issued order contained attention complain, attempted of limitation plaintiff’s peti- years Young as an that: 49 L. 46 rehearing ineorpqration which- as v. Chicago, days. appellee nevertheless of its 582, provision 1906.” to be an act, to indicate L. Ed. Sutherland the statute and Baltimore, soon there- plaintiff’s when and in its plaintiffs v. effect contrary, 8 months January incident Ed. Mettler, receiver; and his 22 last remedy him to (1) and in- David an ab- heard, When if, would Acts 31st since collect a prin- trial Sup. past etc., wit, differentiated 922. did not and vig- any for ob- corporation re in- (3) as Statutes 3. 2. Statutes panies Texas that the of issuing fidelity out First and Second establish the Revised Civil therein meant that which that was Gent. the contents the dicate its intended “Be kind of insurance insurance ize the 1. Insurance of the laws tory, investigation, tions shall contain more than one an act is not fying Cent. as money paid nicipal companies, of state,” etc., former apply Quillin’s view of the familiar shown employes, (Court enactment. For other sions —Title—‘ NATIONAL tract — [Ed. Note.—For other [Ed. Note.—For other The motion for apply void foreign companies doing particular law, change, Such Const, Contracts bonds were invalid as fraud, the constitutional March and intended to relative art. rules Dig. Dig. title, incorporation to all legislation, enacted issued them and which received the in the only interpret debt which to other insurance contracts. WALKER CO. Municipal Corporations, Fidelity invalidity 4955), entered into for companies, employer against Leg. §§ Civil §§ into Rev. St. art. applicable definitions, ineffectual since under the than and section <&wkey;113 292, 294-298; expressed companies transacting any &wkey;>145 141-144; as to based regulate language quoted above, construction must <&wkey; of a SURETY c. April bills provides Appeals ‘Subject.” the word guaranty is entitled “An act to author- following application those enumerated business 146—Construction Series, Subject.] rehearing and that the guaranty insurance, the same as a claim that § city therefor, especially cannot subjects extent of the as surety company, so so far — rule apprise Legislature life, accident, Guaranty their business and that see Words Rehearing has contracted. —Constitutional Dec. not relieved Codification 1915.) towas life, fire, marine, etc., provides cases, CO. its to a defense cases, that a de facto mu- urge written (No. bonds. titles, amendatory premium paid as Dec. “subject” Statutes, reciting, Texas. bill is overruled. subject, thereof title, to insurance com- not so Dig. business prevent surprise applicable, art. surety company title did not see 384.) Dig. &wkey;146.] MURPHY- apply dishonesty see legislators state. chapters risk, Denied in a suit to that no bill of the state Bond. &wkey;>113. embraced in governed § 2354. representa- therein, and health adopt invalidity Insurance, provisions expressed. (Rev. expressed El Statutes, act shall indemni- Bhrases, oe as used but we manda- Provi- — thereto 1 Mc- Held, with- Paso. Con- after Re- not in- Texas,” Civil Statutes of the state of Final Title, strued as not 16, declaring appellee “There is no § the statutes to be con- that the existing laws, Young bonds held valid debt continuance of force, new enactments the laws then issued them.” Const, 3, 43, providing and session of the provide art. § that the first Appellee’s pleadings in the trial thereunder should here, presented its brief filed revising publishing the contention laws, (j^=>For topic Key-Numbered other cases see same Digests and KEY-NUMBER in all and Indexes

Case Details

Case Name: Young v. City of Colorado

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Feb 6, 1915

Citation: 174 S.W. 986

Docket Number: No. 8080.

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.