Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 36
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
36 MORRIS & CUMMINGS v. SCHOONER LEONA. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
sacola, 3 Otto, 266; Dillon, Mun. Corp., 151; West River Bridge
Co. v. Dix, 6 How., 529.
Welch &f Givens, for appellees, cited: Const. 1876, art. XII, sec.
3; Special Laws 1875, ch. 88, p. 135; Blessing v. City of Galveston,
42 Tex., 642; Merriwether v. Garrett, 12 Otto, 511; East Hartford
v. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 How., 511; United States v. B. & O. R.
R. Co., 17 Wall., 322; Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall., 1; Barnes v.
Dist. of Columbia, 1 Otto, 540; Police Jury v. Shreveport (Repeal
of Corporation Ferry Right), 5 La. An., 661; Amite City v. Clemens,
24 La. An., 27; New Orleans v. Hoyle, 23 La. An., 740; Philadelphia
v. Fox, 64 Pa. St., 169; Trustees v. Tatman, 13 Ill., 30;
Darlington v. Mayor, 31 N. Y., 164; Cooley on Con. Lim., sees. 192
and 193, and authorities (4th ed.); Dillon on Mun. Corp. (3d ed.),
sees. 64, 85, 87, and authorities, and sec. 967; Sedgwick on Cons. of
Con. and Stat. Law, p. 582 and note of authorities.
WILLIE, CHIEF JUSTICE.- This action was brought by the appellants
against the Schooner Leona and her owner, N. Gussett, to
recover the sum of $431.34 alleged to be due the plaintiffs on account
of tolls arising from the use by said schooner of the channel between
Corpus Christi and Aransas Bay. The facts under which
the right to these tolls was claimed were set up in the petition, and
were substantially the same as those contained in the special answer
of these same appellants to an information in the nature of a quo
warranto, filed by the state for the purpose of ousting them of the
franchise of collecting the identical tolls claimed in this suit. In
disposing of that case a few days since, we held that the appellants
were entitled to exercise that franchise, and hence that question is
eliminated from the present appeal.
The defendants in this case filed a plea in abatement, in which
the only question raised, that requires our attention, is as to the right
of the plaintiffs to bring this suit in their own name, or whether
they were not required to sue in the name of the city of Corpus
So far as this plea is sought to be sustained upon the ground that
the franchise of collecting tolls still existed in the city, the question
is settled against the plea by our decision in the case referred to.
Whether the franchise existed in the city, or whether it had been
assigned to the appellants, is unimportant, as also whether the tolls
were collected by the latter as agents of the city or contractors with
it. The exercise of the right to collect them was vested in the ap
Here’s what’s next.
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 Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/58/: accessed July 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .