finding that although a "hold harmless" provision created an indeterminate future liability, the county could agree to it if it levied the tax and established the sinking fund required by the Constitution
How later courts described this case
- finding that although a "hold harmless" provision created an indeterminate future liability, the county could agree to it if it levied the tax and established the sinking fund required by the Constitution
- “an indemnity agreement is a ‘debt’ within the constitutional sense, and. . . , as a corollary thereto, provision must be made for the payment of any interest that may accrue thereon and for the retirement of the obligation”
- examining county contract in determining whether indemnity provision created an unconstitutional debt
- examining county contract in determining whether indenmity provision created an unconstitutional debt
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION
GRIFFIN, Justice.
I cannot agree with the majority opinion herein.
To my mind this case is controlled by the case of Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Galveston County, 141 Tex. 34 , 169 S.W.2d 713 (1943). The attempted distinctions between this case and the Galveston County case are neither logical nor valid.
I would hold the order in question illegal and void and violative of the Constitution as set out in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Civil Appeals.
GREENHILL, J., joins in this dissent.