holding that a direct equitable proceeding filed in the district court comes within the power granted by Tex. Const. art. V, § 8 and the predecessor of Section 24.020
How later courts described this case
- holding that a direct equitable proceeding filed in the district court comes within the power granted by Tex. Const. art. V, § 8 and the predecessor of Section 24.020
- holding that a direct equitable proceeding filed in the district court comes within the power granted by Article V, § 8 and the predecessor of Section 24.020
- where county commissioners named in original petition but county itself deemed necessary and indispensable party, petitioner could “amend at any time to make the county a party”
- affirming trial court’s denial of injunctive relief where plaintiff failed to join necessary party
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Culver
joined by Justice Griffin, dissenting.
I do not agree that Art. 3886, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Stat., prohibits the Commissioners Court from paying an assistant district attorney appointed for and engaged on a temporary duty not to exceed thirty days, at a greater monthly rate than the statute permits for one regularly employed on a yearly basis.
The grand jury decided that an investigation of certain county affairs should be made by an attorney and at the request of the grand jury the District Attorney appointed an assistant with the approval of the Commissioners Court, the appointment being limited to a period of thirty days and for a compensation not to exceed $600.00. It is to be expected that the employment for a period of a month only would normally *105 be more than the monthly rate for employment on a yearly basis. In my opinion the Commissioners Court did not exceed its authority in making the order and should not be enjoined from paying the compensation where the services have been performed.
Opinion delivered June 27, 1956.
Rehearing overruled July 25, 1956.