Williams v. Davidson
Citations
- 43 Tex. 1
Syllabus
<p>1. Nuisance. See statement of the case for facts which, if true, will entitle a party to maintain a suit for equitable relief against one who obstructed a public highway if the obstruction is of a character to constitute a nuisance.</p> <p>2. Colonization laws. The colonization laws in force in 1836 had no application to the condition of the city of Victoria, or its government after the change of government in 1836, and conferred no power on the City Council of said city to grant a franchise of a toll bridge in 1865.</p> <p>3. Hiparían proprietor. The riparian proprietor may he given a preference over others when applying for the right to exercise a franchise (í. e., a toll bridge), but his position in that respect does not confer the franchise.</p> <p>4. Prescription. When the mode of granting a particular franchise for more than thirty years has been, by notorious public act, such as an act of the Congress of the Republic, and afterward of the State, a claim to such franchise cannot be established by usage alone for thirty years, when no complaint is made of the loss or destruction of the records evidencing the grant.</p> <p>S Power op a city to grant a pranchise. The power of the mayor and aldermen of an incorporated city to grant to private parties a franchise to erect a toll bridge across a river flowing through the city, was predicated on the following clauses in the charter of incorporation, viz. : “ The mayor and aldermen shall have the power to enact and enforce “ such ordinances and regulations as they may deem necessary for the “ government of said town; provided the same do not conflict with the “ Constitution and Laws of the Republic,” and “ shall have entire police “of said town.” Meld, 1. That these are nothing more than the ordinary powers granted to towns and cities for the exercise of their municipal authority. 2. That they do not embrace by fair implication the high governmental power of granting a franchise of a toll bridge to individuals. 3.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- attorney misappropriated client's funds that were to be used to pay child support, forged the intended recipient's name, and overdrew his escrow account
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.