Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 Tex. Civ. App. 423

38 S.W 249

Wright v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 31, 1896

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1896-10-31

<p>I. County Boundary Line—Power of Commissioners Court—Legislative Ratification.</p> <p>Since the Legislature could empower the Commissioners Courts to adjust and establish disputed county boundary lines, it could by subsequent curative act ratify their action in such a matter done without previous authority.</p> <p>3. Damages—Liability of Officer—Judicial Act.</p> <p>The members of the County Commissioners Court are not individually liable in a civil action to one whose property has been wrongfully taken by the tax collector in pursuance of an order of such court to collect a tax levied by them in a district which, upon a misconstruction of the law, they had erroneously determined to be within their jurisdiction.</p> <p>3. Same—Exemplary Damages.</p> <p>Neither the officer collecting nor the Commissioners Court levying a tax on the citizens of a district which the court has erroneously, but without malice or wantonness, determined lies within its jurisdiction, can be held liable for exemplary damages, although property has been wrongfully and illegally seized in consequence of the order for collection of the taxes.</p> <p>4. Same—Officer as Trespasser—Actual Damages.</p> <p>Where a tax collector executes void process in another county, he is liable in actual damages as a trespasser.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-10-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1964

1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

6018961900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1This motion is granted, and the following conclusions filed:

¶21. The order of the Commissioners Court of Clay County appointed Sam Green to run the dividing line between Clay and Jack Counties, directed him to begin at the southeast corner of Clay County. The field notes of the dividing line as run by Green and Calloway, by virtue of the authority given them by the Commissioners Courts of Clay and Jack Counties, respectively, indicate that they began their work at the northwest corner of Wise County, and not at the southeast corner of Clay County. The order and the field notes, which were spread upon the minutes of the Commissioners Court of Clay County, speak for themselves, and will be found on pages 27, 28 and 29 of the transcript. It does not appear that any plat or map of the line surveyed by these surveyors was filed with their report.

¶32. As to the action of the Commissioners Court of Clay County with reference to the appointment made at the June term, 1891, of R.J. Brown to make a survey of the line between Clay and Jack Counties, we adopt the facts stated in connection therewith as found on pages 18 and 19 of the appellants' brief. It is unnecessary to set them out at length.

¶4We find these additional conclusions, though we deem them immaterial. The line marked by the surveyors Green and Calloway was, as we find, sufficiently definite for identification. This appears from the testimony, and from the uncontroverted conduct of the officials of the two counties, who, it seems, for a series of years have had no difficulty in fixing the location of this line. The order of the Commissioners Courts of Clay and Jack Counties in adopting and improving this line should not be held to be void, because of the failure of the surveyor Green to comply literally with the directions of the court. The court adjudicated that the compliance was substantial.

¶5Writ of error refused.

/14/texcivapp/423 · .json · Public domain