Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1884, and the Galveston term, 1885. Volume 63. Page: 15
xxiv, 824 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884.] GALVESTON WHARF Co. v. GALVESTON. 15
* ~~/ ~ Opinion of the court.
APPEAL from Galveston. Tried below before Hon. Wm. H. Stewart.
The opinion states the case.
Balliqnger, Mott & Terry, and Trezevant & Frianklin, for appellant,
cited: Const.,-art. VII, §§ 1, 2, 3; art. XI, §§ 5, 9; art. XII, §, 3, 4, 5;
Act February 8, 1851; City of Galveston v. Menard, 23 Tex., 349;
Cooley on Tax., 130, 131; Burroughs on Tax., §§ 73, 142, 25; Dillon on
Mun. Corp., §§ 64, 646; Townsend v. Greely, 5 Wall., 326; Klein v.
New Orleans, 99 U. S., 149; N. O. v. Carrollton R. Co., 7 La. Ann.
148; Decision of Judge Woods, U. S. Circuit' Court, IIitchcock v.
Wharf Company, garnishing city wharf stock; Hart v. Burnett, 15
Cal., 530; Fulton v. Henlow, 20 Cal., 486; Fall v. Marysville, 19 Cal.,
381; Law v. Lewis, 46 Cal., 552; Piper v. Singer, 4 S. & R., 354;
Dir. of Poor v. School Dir., 42 Penn. St., 25; Gibson v. Hora, 37 Ia.,
170; State v. Gaffney, 34 N. J., 133; Nashville Bank v. Tenn., 1
Swan, 269; People v: Salomon, 51 Ill., 52.
That injunction was appellant's proper remedy, they cited: Const.,
sees. 13 and 15, art. 8; Amended Charter, sees. 96 and 97; Cooley
on Tax., 278-280; id., 341-2; Burroughs on Tax., 302; Blackwell,
Tax Titles, 279-289; Clegg v. State, 42 Tex., 609; State v. Baker,
49 Tex., 763; Edmonson v. City of Galveston, 53 Tex., 157; Hayden
v. Foster, 13 Pick., 492; Terrell v. Graves, 18 Cal., 149; Shimmin v.
Inman, 26 Me, 228; Cooley on Con. Lim., 521; 1 High on Inj.,
§§ 517, 529; Johnson v. Hahn, 4 Neb., 143; Abbott v. Edgerton, 53
Ind., 196; Freemont v. Bowling, 11 Cal., 380; Webb v. Cutsinger,
48 Ind., 246.
James B. Stubbs, for appellee, on the proposition that the property
was not exempt, even in part, from taxation, cited: Const., art. 8, sees.
2, 4; art. 11, sec. 9; Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wall., 584, 598;
Queen v. Arnold, 9 Ad. & Ell. (N. S.), 806; Richmond v. R. & D. R.
Co., 21 Gratt., 604; Atkins v. Gamble, 42 Cal., 86; Baltimore v. B.
& 0. R. R. Co., 6 Gill, 288; Burroughs on Tax., 142, 385; 2 Wait's
Actions and Defenses, 311; Dillon, Mun. Corp., § 776; City of Galveston
v. Menard, 23 Tex., 349; Norris I. City of Waco, 57 Tex., 635;
Fall v. Maryville, 19 Cal., 391; Cooley on Taxation, 145, 146, 149,
150, 151, 152-54, and notes, 199, 482, 123, note, 163; Red v. Johnson,
53 Tex., 287; Bank v. Tennessee, 104 U. S., 493; Erie R. R. Co.
v. Penn., 21 Wall., 492; N. O. v. St. Anna Asylum, 31 La. Ann., 292;
Stein v. Mobile, 17 Ala.,-134; Brennan v. Bradshaw, 53 Tex., 338.
STAYTON, ASOCIATE JUSTICE.- The nature and result of this action
is correctly stated in the brief of counsel for appellant as follows:
"Suit was brought by the Galveston Wharf Company, a corpo
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1884, and the Galveston term, 1885. Volume 63., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28511/m1/39/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .