¶1 dissenting in part. — Construing section 51 of the Act of 1905 (see General Laws, 1905, page 277) with section 50 of the same Act as amended in 1909 (see General Laws, 1909, page 18), it seems that the power to subdivide school districts once constituted is limited only by the provision that no district shall be reduced to an area of less than nine square miles instead of not less than sixteen square miles as theretofore provided and as. the threatened subdivision herein complained of is alleged to be. Appellants’ petition therefore fails to show that the threatened act of the Commissioners’ Court would be void, or one not wholly within the discretion of the Commissioners’ Court, over which discretion this court can not exercise supervision. I accordingly concur in the conclusion of the majority to the effect that appellants’ petition did not authorize the issuance of the injunction in the first instance and hence that it was properly dissolved, but I do not wish to be understood as committed to the proposition, if the opinion of the majority is susceptible of such construction, that it was proper in this case to dissolve the injunction on the merits of an answer which merely set up facts in avoidance and not in denial of the allegations upon which the injunction issued.
58 Tex. Civ. App. 370
125 S.W 366
Wier v. Hill
Decided January 1, 1910
Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1910-01-01
<p>1. —Injunction—Motion to Dissolve — Venue.</p> <p>A district judge has jurisdiction to act upon and grant in any county of liis district a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction theretofore granted by him although the injunction suit is pending in some other county oí his district. It is not essential that the motion to dissolve be heard in the same county in which the suit is pending.</p> <p>2, —School Districts — Commissioners’ Courts — Exclusive Jurisdiction.</p> <p>Under our statutes the Commissioners’ Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in their respective counties to divide the counties into school districts and to fix the boundaries of the same, and the District Courts have no power to revise or control such action.</p>
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1918
6 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1910-01-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →