T. V. Board v. Texas & Pacific R. W. Co.

Citations

• 46 Tex. 316

Syllabus

<p>1. Parties.—In a suit by tax-payers of a county, to annul proceedings of the County Court authorizing the issuance of bonds of the county, and to enjoin the collection of taxes to pay interest on such bonds, the bondholders are necessary parties.</p> <p>2. Lis pendens.—Discussed; and intimation that Us pendens would be notice under our statutes from the filing of the bill or petitioñ, where ■ reasonable diligence was had to obtain service of citation, either by personal service or by publication.</p> <p>3. County bonds.—Such bonds must be treated as commercial paper, and their holders entitled to the privileges and immunities attaching to negotiable instruments. They are not, therefore, within the rule of Us pendens.</p> <p>4. Practice.—The allegation that county bonds had been fraudulently issued and delivered to the railroad company, and by it bad been passed- to parties, with full notice of the fraud, will not obviate the necessity of bringing the bondholders before court as parties.</p> <p>5. Same.—To confer power to annul such bonds, the holders should be parties, and the instruments brought under the control of the court, so as to await its action upon their validity, &c. Courts do not sit to determine abstract principles, but to decide practical issues, and to settle issues in which the litigants have a substantial or immediate interest.</p> <p>6. County bonds.—For will the court, as against the railroad, annul the bonds, as against the county, and adjudge that payment therefor be provided by the railroad; such action would impair the rights of the bondholders.</p> <p>7. Mandatory injunction.—See allegations held insufficient to warrant its issuance.</p>