« 이전계속 »
Page Paducah & I. R. Co., Bondurant v. (Ky.).. 257 Reynolds, State ex rel. Boatmen's Bank v. Page v. Tucker (Tex. Civ. App.). 584 (Mo.)
337 Palmer, Armstrong v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 627 | Reynolds's Ex'r v. Reynolds (Ky.). ..1001 Palmer' v. Bank of Sturgeon (Mo.).
873 Rice, Hines v. (Ark.). Panhandle & S. F. R. Co. v. Sanderson Richards v. Howard (Tex. Civ. App.) 95 (Tex. Civ. App.).... 540 Rivercomb, McIlroy v. (Ark.).
841 Papan, Heer Engine Co. v. (Ark.)
202 Road Imp. Dist. No. 1, Prairie County, Park v. Covington (Ky.)
856 Patterson, Easley y. (Ark.).
381 Road Imp. Dists. of Bradley County, Johns Payne v. State (Ark.).
389 Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. Suitor (Tex.)....1034 Robbins, Cameron v. (Ark.)
173 Peerless Lighting Co. v. Bourn Rubber Roberson v. Terrell (Tex. Civ. App.). 813 Co. (MIo. App.)
347 Roberts, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. (Ky.).. 713 Pegues, Willis v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
96 Roberts, Smith v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 27 People's Guaranty State Bank v. Castle Robertson v. Glenn (Mo. App.)
920 (Tex. Civ. App.). . 519 Robertson, Rogers v. (Ark.).
206 People's Guaranty State Bank, Denison Robinson, Gross v. (Mo. App.).
924 Bank & Trust Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.)... 561 Robinson, Stone v. (Tex. Civ. App.)
668 People's Guaranty State Bank, Dennison
Roche v. Day (Ark.). Bank & Trust Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.). . 562 Rodriguez, Vaello v. (Tex. Civ. App.)....1082 Peper v. Bell (Mo. App.). 438 Rogers v. Robertson (Ark.).
206 Peper, Linstroth v. (Mo. App.).
431 Roll, Home Ins. Co. of New York v. (Ky.) 471 Perdue, Butler v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
.1119 Romig, W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. (Mo. Perle, Dempsey v. (Mo. App.)..
892 Peterson, Henson v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 126 Rosa v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
.1056 Phillips v. Murphy (Ky.).. 250 Ross, Jones v. (Ark.).
198 Pickens v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 755 Roth v. Loftin (Tex. Civ. App.).
89 Pierce v. Foreign Mission Board of South Rudolph, Meador v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 520 ern Baptist Convention (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 Rugen v. Vaughan (Ark.).
205 Pierce v. Pierce (Tex. Civ. App.).
144 Rural Special School Dist. No. 30 v. Pine Planters' Gin Co., Strange v. (Ark.).
661 Plapao Laboratories, Harmon V. (Mo. Russell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
1049 App.) 701 Russell v. State Tex. Cr. App.).
. 1051 Platt, Stamps v. Tex. Civ. App.)
47 Rutherford y. Deaver (Tex. Civ. App.): 31 Player, State ex rel. Whalen v. (Mo.).
859 Ryan, Frank Hart Realty Co. v. (Mo. Plummer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)... 499
412 Polish Nat. Catholic Church, Saints Cyrill and Methodius, in St. Louis, Mo., Kulariez St. Louis Fish & Oyster Co., Osterman v. (Mo. App.) 904 v. (Mo. App.)...
410 Pollard v. Carlisle (Mo. App.)
921 St. Louis, & S. F. R. Co. v. Black (Ark.) 377 Poole, Brannen v. (Ark.).
186 St. Marys Mach. Co. v. Cook (Ky.).. 733 Porter v. Frazier (Ark.) 203 St. Pasteur v. Wilson (Ark.).
843 Post v. Brown (Tenn.)
823 Salyers v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (Ky.) 474 Power Grocery Co., George Alexander &
Samohoviec V. American Mfg. Co. (Mo. Co. State Bank v. (Ky.)..
684 Power Grocery Co. v. Hinton (Ky.) .1013 San Antonio Water Supply Co., Neal v. Prevolos v. Western Union Tel. Co. (Tex.
(Tex. Civ. App.).
35 Civ. App.).
Sanderson, Panhandle & S. F. R. Co. v. (Tex.Civ.App.) ..
510 Price, Texas Electric R. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. App.) .1092
Sanderson v. Williams (Ark.) Price Brokerage Co., Mayo v. (Mo. App.) 932 Schaff v. Gooch (Tex. Civ. App.).
Savells v. Brown's Guardian (Ky.).
783 Probus, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. (Ky.). . 724
Schneider, Koy v. (Tex.). 910
479 Proctor v. Garman (Mo. App.) Pryor, Lafever v. (Mo. App.).
Schoonmaker v. Clardy (Tex. Civ. App.). .1112
908 Puckett v. Morris (Ky.)
366 Pullam v. Moore (Mo. App.) 938
21 Pullam v. Vaughn (Mo. App.)
Scott, Fryckberg v. (Tex.Civ.App.).
889 Pulliam, Pullman Co. v. (Ky.).
Scott, Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford, . 1005 Conn., v. (Tex. Civ. App.)....
53 Pullman Co. v. Pulliam (Ky.)
..1005 Pullum, Shepard v. (Mo. App.) 975
416 Secoy, Hindman v. (Mo. App.). Security Life Ins. Co. of America, Nutt v. (Ark.)...
675 Quinn v. Hendren (Ky.)...... ...1022 Security Stove & Mfg. Co., Stipetich v.
964 Rabb v. Seidel (Tex. Civ. App.). 607 Seidel, Rabb_v. (Tex.Civ.App.).
607 Rader v. Shaffer (Ky.).
292 Sethman v. Union Depot Bridge & TermiRaines, Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. nal R. Co. (NIo, App.)
879 v. (Tex. Civ. App.) 545 Shaffer, Rader v. (Ky.)..
292 Ramsey, Wahl v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 559 Shaw v. Grimes (Ky.)..
447 Randall v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.)... 509 Shaw, Texas & P. R. Co. v. (Tex.Civ. Rawlings Workmen's Compensation App.)
814 Board (Ky.) 985 Shegog v. Craig (Tex. Civ. App.).
530 Ray, Ex parte (Tex. Cr. App.). 504 Shepard v. Pullum (Mo. App.)
975 Ray v. Mayhew (Ky.) 984 Shults, Fendley v. (Ark.). .
197 Reaugh v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Mo. Shutt Methodist Episcopal Church App.) 947 (Ky.)
. 1020 Redmond, Carter v. (Tenn.) 217 Simmons v. Dickson (Tex.).
365 Reid v. 'American Nat. Ássur. Co. (Mo. Sinton Independent School Dist., Welder App.). 957 v. (Tex.Civ.App.)..
106 Revill v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
.1044 Slaughter, Brooks v. (Tex.Civ.App.). 632 Reynolds, Hines v. (Ark.) 375 Slaughter v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
767 Reynolds, Reynolds' Ex'r v. (Ky.). ...1001 Slaughter v. Texas Life Ins. Co. (Tex, Reynolds, State ex rel. Abington v. (Mo.).. 334 Civ. App.).....
(218 S.W.) Page
Page Smith, Archenhold Co. v. (Tex.Civ.App.).. 808 State, Slaughter v. (Tex. Cr. App.). ... 767 Smith, Griffin v. (Tex.Civ.App.). 33 State, Smith v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
.1048 Smith, Kansas City v. (Mo. App.). 943 State, Swim v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
761 Smith v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 State v. Trotter (Tenn.).
230 Smith v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 602 State, Venn v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
.1060 Smith, Spitzer v. (Tex. Civ.App.). 599 State, Wallin v. (Ark.).
170 Smith v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).. ..1048 State, Washington v. (Tex. Cr. App.). ...1043 Smith v. Townley Mfg. Co. (Mo.)
870 State, Wayland v. Tex. Cr. App.). .1065 Soehngen v. Jantzen (Mo. App.). 423 State, Williams v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
750 Solmson v. Deese (Ark.)..
657 State, Woodard v. (Tex. Cr. App.) 760 Sommer, Caddy Oil Co. v. (Ky.) 288 State, Young v. (Tex. Cr. App.)..
505 Sorrels v. Marble (Ark.) 671 State, Young v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
754 South Covington & C. R. Co. v. Goldsmith State, Young v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
286 State Bank of Commerce v. Cox (Tex. Civ. Southern Pac. Co. v. Stevenson (Tex. Civ. App.)
151 State ex rel. Abington v. Reynolds (Mo.) 334 Southern Rice Growers' Ass'n, D. S. Cage State ex rel. Boatmen's Bank v. Reynolds & Co. v. (Tex.Civ.App.). . 78 (Mo.)
337 Southern Surety Co. v. Lucero (Tex. Civ.
State ex rel. Clark County v. Hackmann App.) 68 (Mo.)
318 Southern Union Life Ins. Co., Mitchell v. State ex rel. Conway v. Nolte (Mo.).
862 (Tex. Civ. App.).
586 State ex rel. Jones v. Howe Scale Co. of Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. Raines Illinois (Mo. App.)..
359 (Tex, Civ. App.)..
545 State ex rel. Public Service Commission Spitzer v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.).
599 of Missouri v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. Springfield Hospital, Davis v. (Mo. App.).. 696 (Mo.)
310 Spurlock v. Wallace (Mo. App.) 890 State ex rel. Whalen v. Player (Mo.).
859 Stamps v. Platt (Tex. Civ. App.). 47 Steele v. Steele (Tex. Civ. App.).
161 Standard Accident Ins. Co., Koprivica v. Sternberg & Sons v. Nodaway Drainage (Mo. App.)..... 689 Dist. No. 2 (Mo. App.).
960 Standard Scale & Supply Co. v. Chapin Stevenson, Southern Pac. Co. v. (Tex. Civ. (Tex, Civ. App.).. 645 App.)
151 Stanley, Frederick Piano Co. (Mo. Stewart Land Co. v. Romig (Mo. App.).... 892 App.)
882 Stidham's Adm'x, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Stanley, McCallister's Adm'r v. (Ky.). 237 (Ky.)
460 Star Clothing Mfg. Co. v. Jones (Ark.) 175 Stipetich v. Security Stove & Mfg. Co. (Mo. State v. Adams (Ark.). 845 App.)
964 State, Adkisson v. (Ark.) 165 Stone v. Robinson (Tex. Civ. App.).
5 State, Adkisson v. (Ark.).
167 Strange v. Planters' Gin Co. (Ark.). 188 State, Alexander v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
752 Straus Cigar Co. v. Bon Marche (Tenn.) 219 State, Arocha v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
759 Struwe, American Automobile Ins. Co. v. State, Bloxom v. (Tex. Cr. App.). .1068 (Tex. Civ. App.)..
534 State, Bosley y. (Tex. Cr. App.).
750 Suitor, Pecos & N. T. R. Co. v. (Tex.)....1034 State, Bride v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 762 Sullivan v. Hines (Mo. App.)..
406 State, Busey v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
1018 Sunshine Oil Co., Hutchinson v. (Mo. App.) 951 State, Clark v. (Tex. Cr. App.)...
366 Sweet Springs Milling Co. v. Gentry, BuState, Cundiff v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 771 chanan & Co. (Ark.)....
380 State, Davis v. (Tex. Cr. App.).... 493 Swim v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
• 761 State, De Hart v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 1047 State, Drozda v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 765 Tackett v. Green (Ky.)..
468 State v. Edmundson (Mo.) 864 Tankersley v. Norton (Ark.).
660 State, Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Tatum y. Fulton (Tex. Civ. App.). (Tex.) 361 Taylor, Bodine v. (Ark.)..
374 State, Garrett v. (Tex. Cr. App.)... 1061 Taylor v. Georgia State Sav. Ass'n (Ark.) 180 State, Gebhardt v. (Tex. Cr. App.). .1047 Tennessee Chemical Co., Mecklenburg Real State, Grant v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
821 State, Griffin v. (Tex, Cr. App.).
494 Tennessee Supply Co. v. Bina Young & State, Haddad v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
225 State, Hahn v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
.1058 Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, Harris v. State, Hart v. (Tex. Cr. App.)
686 State, Hawkins v. (Tenn.). 397 Terrell, King v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
42 State, Hill v. (Ark.)..
197 | Texarkana & Ft. Smith R. Co., Brass V. State, Hilliard v. (Tex. Cr. App.) 1052 (Tex. Com. App.).
..1040 State, Hughes v. (Tex. Cr. App.) .1048 Texas Electric R. Co. v. Price (Tex. Civ. State, Jackson v. (Ark.). 369 App.)
. 1092 State, Johnson v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 496 Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass'n v. Downing State, Johnson v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 759 (Tex. Civ. App.)
112 State, Jones v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
759 Texas Life Ins. Co., Slaughter v. (Tex. Civ. State, Kirkland v. (Tex. Cr. App.).. 367 App.)
1109 State, Lang v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
764 Texas & N. 0. R. Co. y. Houston UnderState, Lee v., two cases (Tex. Cr. App.). .1070 taking Co. (Tex. Civ. App.).
84 State, McKee v. (Tenn.).
233 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Shaw (Tex. Civ. State, Mercardo V. (Tex. Cr. App.). 491 App.)
814 State, Moore v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
366 Thompson v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis State, Moore v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
. 1059 (Mo. App.). State, Owens v. (Tex. Cr. App.). .1070 Townley Mfg. Co., Smith v. (Mo.)..
870 State, Payne v. (Ark.). .
176 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Hermer (Mo. App.) 937 State, Pickens v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
755 | Travelers’ Ins. Co., Gates v. (Mo. App.).. 927 State, Plummer V. (Tex. Cr. App.). 499 Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. State, Revill v. (Tex. Cr. App.).. .1044 Scott (Tex. Civ. App.)
53 State, Rosa v. (Tex. Cr. App.).
.1056 Trochta v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of State, Russell v. (Tex. Cr. App.). 1019 Texas (Tex. Com. App.).
.1038 State, Russell v. (Tex. Cr. App.). .1051 | Trotter, State v. (Tenn.).
Page Trustees of First Christian Church of Western Union Tel. Co. v. Johnson (Tex. Paris, Etna Accident & Liability Co. v. Civ. App.).....
781 (Tex. Civ. App.).
537 | Western Union Tel. Co., Prevolos v. (Tex. Tucker, Page v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 584 Civ. App.)
812 Twohig v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. (Mo. West Furniture Co. v. Cason (Tex. Civ. App.) 897 App.)
W. E. Stewart Land Co. v. Romig (Mo. Union Depot Bridge & Terminal R. Co., App.)
892 Sethman v. Mo. App.). 879 Wheeler, Cook v. (Mo. App.)
929 United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Davis v.
Whitt, Charles v. (Ky.)...
994 (Mo. App.)..
357 Widmer v. Moran Bolt & Nut Mfg. Co. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, Thompson v.
351 (Mo. App.)
343 Wiegel v. Road Imp. Dist. No. 1, Prairie United States Fashion & Sample Book Co.
856 v. Montrose Cloak & Suit Co. (Mo.).. 867 Wight v. Bell (Tex. Civ. App.).
532 Uvalde Nat. Bank, Goree y. (Tex. Civ.
Wight, Davis v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
26 App.) 620 Wiley's Adm'r, Craig v. (Ky.)...
450 Wilkerson v. National Council of Knights
976 Vaello v. Rodriquez (Tex. Civ. App.).
and Ladies of Security (Mo. App.)
...1082 Van Ness v. Van Ness (Tex. Civ. App.)...1076 Wilkes, Federal Life Ins. Co. v. (Tex. Civ.
591 Vaughan, Rugen v. (Ark.).
718 Vaughn, Pullam v. (Mo. App.).
Wilkes v. Kitchen (Ky.).
889 Venn v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
Wilkins, Express Pub. Co. v. (Tex. Ciy.
614 Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Grimes v.
918 (Tex. Civ. App.).
Wilks, Baird v: (Mo. App.)
Williams, Allen v. (Tex. Civ. App.). 135
179 Wabash R. Co., Israel v. (Mo. App.). 916 Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
750 Wabash R. R., Childs v. (Mo. App.). 935 Willis v. Pegues (Tex. Civ. App.)
.1010 Walker v. Goetz (Tex, Civ. App.).
760 Walker v. Ozark Cooperage & Lumber Co.
Woosley, Buchanan-Vaughan Auto Co. v. of New Jersey (Mo. App.).
554 Wall, Dalby v. (Tex. Civ. App.).
46 Workmen's Compensation Board, Rawlings Wallace, Spurlock v. (Mo. App.).
985 Wallin v. State (Ark.)
170 Woytek v. King (Tex. Civ. App.). .1081 Walling & Son, First Nat. Bank v. (Tex.
Wray, Kansas City Southern R. Co. v.
834 Warren v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 104 Wright v. A. G. McAdams Lumber Co. Washington_v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)....1043 (Tex. Civ. App.).....
571 Waterman Lumber Co. v. Bcatty (Tex.) 363 Watson v. Arthur (Ark.) 849 Yates v. Brown (Mo. App.)
895 Wayland v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) . 1065 Yeager v. Houston & T. C. R. Co. (Tex. Welder v. Sinton Independent School Dist. Civ. App.).
3 (Tex. Civ. App.).. 106 York, Childers v. (Ky.)..
.1027 Western Automobile Indemnity Ass'n, Young v. Bank of Sweetwater (Ky.)
463 Brinkman v. (Mo. App.). 944 | Young v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).
505 Western Paving Co., Fest v. (Tex. Civ. Young v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
. 1079 Young v. State (Tex. Cr. App.).. .1063
528 | Zimmerman v. Hemann (Ark.)...... 835
See End of Index for Tables of Southwestern Cases in State Reports
debt being created or contemplated, it not being J. I. CASE THRESHING MACH. CO. v. sufficient to provide for raising a fund which CAMP COUNTY. (No. 2188.)
may or may not be used lawfully for its pay
ment, a fund being necessary which cannot law(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana. fully be diverted for any other purpose by a Dec. 31, 1919. Rehearing Denied succeeding commissioners' court. Feb. 12, 1920.)
5. COUNTIES 165—PROVISION FOR PAYMENT 1. COUNTIES 165—WARRANT A "DEBT" RE
OF DEBTS MUST BE MADE PRIOR TO OR AT TIME
Under Const. art. 11, § 7, providing that no A warrant drawn on the county treasurer debts shall ever be incurred by a county unless in 1913 payable to the drawee in 1916, given provision is made at the time of creating the for the purchase price of a traction engine, same for levying and collecting a sufficient tax came within the definition of a debt under to pay it, it is not enough to provide funds for Const. art. 11, § 7, forbidding the incurring of the payment of the debt after it has been creatdebt unless provision is made at the time of ed, as nothing the commissioners' court can do executing the warrant for levying and collecting after crcating the debt, without so providing, sufficient tax to pay the same.
can validate it. [Ed. Note.-For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Debt.]
Appeal from District Court, Camp County;
J. A. Ward, Judge. 2. COUNTIES Cm170(3) PETITION INSUFFI
Action by the J. I. Case Threshing MaCIENT TO SHOW PROVISION MADE FOR COLLECTING TAXES FOR DEBT SUED FOR.
chine Company against Camp County. Judg. Petition in an action on a warrant given ment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. in 1913, and payable in 1916, as consideration
Affirmed. for a traction engine, held not to sufficiently Bass & Engledow, of Pittsburg, and Spence, aver that at the time of creating the debt pro- Haven & Smithdeal, of Dallas, for appellant. vision had been made for levying and collecting a sufficient tax to pay the same, although it was
M. M. Smith, of Pittsburg, for appellee. alleged that there were sufficient funds accumulated to satisfy the warrant.
HODGES, J. The appellant, J. I. Case 3. EVIDENCE @ww 48-JUDICIALLY KNOWN THAT Threshing Machine Company, instituted this
FUNDS RAISED FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND suit against Camp county to recover upon MAY BE USED IN DEFRAYING CURRENT EX- two county warrants issued by the county,
each for the sum of $900. The following is The court knows judicially that funds raised a copy of one of said warrants: from taxes for the road and bridge fund of the
“No. 295. county may be used in defraying current ex
$900.00. penses for improving and maintaining the public "Tho Treasurer of the County of Camp, State of highways unless appropriate orders have been
Texas: made setting apart all or a portion of it for
"March 1st, 1916, Pay to the order of the some other purpose.
J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company the sum
of nine hundred dollars, with interest from this 4. COUNTIES 165 - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION date at the rate of 6% per annum, out of the
NECESSARY WITH REFERENCE TO PROVIDING road and bridge fund of Camp county, Texas, TAXES TO PAY DEBT CREATED OR CONTEM- being the amount allowed by the commissioners'
court of said county at its August term, 1913, To make provision for the levy and collec- for one J. I. Case gas traction engine and two tion of taxes prior to or at the time of creating No. 1 Perfection road graders, this day pura debt as provided by Const. art. 11, § 7, when chased from the J. I. Case Threshing Machine this has not been done by law, requires some Company. affirmative action on the part of the county au "It is agreed and understood that the title thorities with special reference to the particular to the above-described property is to remain in
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
the said J. I. Case Countil all ingtallments on county's obligations herein sued upon, Insame are paid.
terest and principal, in accordance with "Minute Book 5, page 252.
their terms and legal effect. It was further “Witness our hands and the seal of this court alleged that out of the moneys thus raised in Pittsburg, Texas, this 13th day of August, 1913. [Signed] G. W. Keeling, County Judge, by the taxpaying voters of Camp county for Camp Co., Texas. (Signed] Joe R. Hooton, the purposes aforesaid a fund was created County Clerk. [Seal.)”
and was on hand at the respective maturity
dates of the warrants sued upon sufficient The second warrant is identical in terms, for their payment. It was also alleged that except that it is payable March 1, 1917. In the warrants were presented and registered its original petition the appellant alleged in by the county treasurer, and at their maturi. the usual form the execution and delivery of ty presented for payment, and payment rethese warrants to it for a valuable consid- fused by the treasurer by direction of the eration received by the county, and by appro- county judge and the commissioners' court priate averments the liability of the county of Camp county. A general demurrer in the by reason thereof, the maturity of the war- form of a special exception was sustained to rants, and the failure and refusal of the this trial amendment, and upon the refusal county to pay them. A general demurrer of the appellant to again amend the suit was was interposed by the appellee to the petition, dismissed. and sustained by the court. Thereupon the (1-5] The petition was attacked as defective appellant filed a trial amendment, in which it because it failed to allege that the tax of 15 alleged that prior to the purchase by the de-cents on the $100 valuation was for the payfendant of the road machinery for which the ment of the interest or the principal of this warrants sued upon were given Camp county specific debt. Section 7 of article 11 of the had, through its proper authorities, levied Constitution, among things, provides: a tax for road and bridge purposes of 15 "But no debt for any purpose shall ever be cents upon each $100 of taxable property incurred in any manner by any city or county within its limits, and thereafter, but before unless provision is made, at the time of creating the purchase of said machinery and for the the same, for levying and collecting a sufficient purpose of supplementing the road and bridge tax to pay the interest thereon and provide at fund of the county, an additional tax of 15 least two per cent. as a sinking fund." cents on the $100 of taxable property was
A debt has been defined as: legally voted by the taxpayers of Camp county at an election held for the purpose, “An obligation which becomes a burden on and that the county's proper authorities were the future revenues of the county, one which is thereby not only authorized, but required, of the current revenues.” McNeal v. City of
not to be paid during the current year and out to annually levy such additional special tax; Waco, 89 Tex. 83, 33 S. W. 322, and cases that Camp county issued road warrants, be there cited; City of Terrell v. Dessaint, 71 Tex. ing county obligations, to obtain funds for 770, 9 S. W. 593. the building and improving the county roads to the amount of $26,000, and for the pur While the warrants here involved were pose of paying the interest thereon and to orders upon the treasurer to be paid out of create a sinking fund the county's proper a specific fund, the dates for their payment authorities levied, for the years 1913 to 1921, made them a charge upon the future reve. inclusive, the regular 15 cents upon the $100 nues of the county. Hence they come within of taxable property authorized under the the definition of a debt which must be progeneral laws of Texas, and specially set vided for as required by the Constitution. aside such tax to pay its said road warrants, Rogers National Bank v. Marion County, 181 and by proper orders provided that such S. W. 884. The question then is: Does the further sum as might be necessary to pay petition allege a compliance with the consaid warrants was specially set aside also stitutional requirements in making provision out of the special additional tax voted by the for levying and collecting the necessary taxpayers. It was averred that thereby suf- taxes? When analyzed, the appellant's petificient funds were provided, as required by tion avers, in substance, the following facts: law, to pay the interest on all such warrants Camp county had a legal right to collect 15 and also upon like warrants which might cents on the $100 valuation of property under lawfully be issued, including those herein the general laws for building and improving sued upon, and to create a sinking fund to its public roads. For the purpose of supplepay the principal thereof at maturity; that, menting funds that might be raised from that if the special tax authorized and required source, the taxpayers, at an election held by the vote of the taxpayers as aforesaid for that purpose, had authorized the levy was not actually levied by the county au- and collection of an additional 15 cents on thorities, the levy thereof was merely a min- the $100 valuation of property. In order to isterial act to be performed by them; that obtain funds for building and improving its in law a fund was thus legally created and public roads, Camp county had issued road provided sufficient for the payment of the warrants to the amount of $26,000, and in