Carroll v. City of Beaumont

18 S.W.2d 813, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 723
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 27, 1929
DocketNo. 1800.
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 18 S.W.2d 813 (Carroll v. City of Beaumont) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carroll v. City of Beaumont, 18 S.W.2d 813, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 723 (Tex. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

O’QUINN, J.

A. D. Carroll, W. C. Gray, N. W. Carroll, and Mrs. A. E. Rachford, alleging themselves to be members of the United Friends of Temperance, Council No. 402, an unincorporated society, and as stockholders and members of the charitable corporation known as the Beaumont Temperance Hall Company, and as citizens and taxpayers of the city of Beaumont, for themselves and on behalf of others of like situation, brought this suit against the city of Beaumont and its officers, seeking to annul and cancel a deed executed by the officers and certain members of the Beaumont Temperance Hall Company to the city of Beaumont, in trust for -charitable, and benevolent purposes. In the alternative, plaintiffs sought relief in the nature of an accounting for the funds of the trust and to correct alleged diversions thereof.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, in their petition set out with considerable detail the history of the Beaumont Temperance Hall Company and other facts with reference to the property involved, a lot and building alleged to be worth some $200,000. They alleged that on April 16, 1921, certain persons, assuming to act for and on behalf of the Beaumont Temperance Hall Company, executed a purported conveyance of the property to the city of Beaumont for the use and benefit of said municipal corporation, and declaring in said deed of conveyance that it was upon certain terms of trust; that the mayor and city councilmen of Beaumont took possession of said property under and by virtue of said conveyance, and now hold same; and that plaintiffs, for and on behalf of the Beaumont Temper-ance Hall Company and United Friends of Temperance, Council No. 402, had demanded •possession of said property, but that the defendants, by force of arms, had excluded plaintiffs from possession of said premises, and now withhold same from plaintiffs and from all other persons connected with said corporation, the Beaumont Temperance Hall Company, and said society, United Friends of Temperance, having title thereto.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the property had not been properly managed by defendants ; that proper and sufficient rents and income were not being received for the use of said property, that no accounting for the income of said property had been made by defendants for a certain time, that said property was going to waste, and that the rents and income from said property were being diverted and applied to causes foreign to and different from the charitable and benevolent -objects and uses for which the trust was created, and to which its funds should be applied.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the deed from the Beaumont Temperance Hall Company to the city of Beaumont was and is void, for in that:

(a) “The said conveyance is so ambiguous on its face as to render proper execution of the trust therein declared wholly impossible, it being declared in one part that the conveyance is for the benefit of the society, and in another part that it is for the benefit of the charities above named.”
(b) “The city of Beaumont has no right to receive title for the purpose of administering the trust of the nature fixed upon this property by the charter of the corporation in ■which the title was -vested as above shown.”
(c) “There has not been such participation in the transfer as the organic law of the society and the corporation owning said property required in order to make conveyance of title.”
(d) “The parties assuming to make the transfer of title were without- authority to make same,”
-(e) “The original trustee corporation was without authority to appoint a successor in trust.”

Plaintiffs prayed for the appointment of a receiver by the court pending final judgment, and “that upon final hearing the aforesaid deed * * * -be canceled and held for •naught, and that trustees be appointed by this court, who with their successors, likewise appointed by this court, from time to time, shall perpetually administer the said trust for the 'benefit of the people of the city of Beaumont, or for the benefit of members of said association and Beaumont Temperance Hall Company as the court may determine in accordance with the provisions of the instrument creating the trust aforesaid, and that the defendants may be required to make a full -and complete accounting of all funds of every nature whatsoever that have come into their hands by reason of their possession and control of said property, and show what disposition they have made of said fund, and that the defendants be required to pay into this court all sums whatsoever collected by them, except such as may have been applied to purposes consonant with the provisions of the instrument creating the said trust in its origin.” And plaintiffs prayed for such relief, general, special, legal, and equitable, as -they might be entitled, together with costs of suit.

Defendants answered, by plea in abatement and by special exception to- plaintiffs’ peti *815 tion, asking that the suit and petition of plaintiffs be dismissed, for the reason that plaintiffs had no legal right to enforce the execution of the public charity referred to in their petition, or to question the title and competency of the city to take and administer the trust, or to take advantage of its alleged inability to execute and perform said charity, or to request the city of Beaumont and codefendants to account to plaintiffs as to the manner of the execution and handling of said eiarity, in that a suit of the nature as shown by plaintiffs’ petition can only 'be brought by or in the name or under the authority of the Attorney 'General of the state of Texas.

Defendants further answered by general demurrer, general denial, and by special answer set out with considerable detail the history of the Beaumont Temperance Hall Company and the nature of said corporation, and the facts with reference to the conveyance of the property to the city, denying that the defendants had been guilty of any wrong or trespass, and alleging that on about June 10, 1921, and immediately after the execution by the Beaumont Temperance Hall of the deed in question, the city of Beaumont became possessed of said property and fully accepted the same in trust, as referred to in said deed, and assumed and undertook the execution and carrying out of the trust, and since that time has continuously remained in possession and control of said property, receiving the rents and profits therefrom, to be applied and used for the benevolent and charitable purposes as intended by the donor; that the city desired to continue in the performance of the obligations so incumbent upon it, and to possess, handle, and control said property in trust for the benevolent and charitable purposes as contemplated by the gift and donation of said property.

Defendants further answered, pleading the four-year statute of limitations against plaintiffs’ suit for the cancellation of the deed from the Beaumont Temperance Hall Company to the city of Beaumont, and also pleaded the three, five and ten year statutes of limitation in bar of plaintiffs’ alleged .cause of action.

The case was tried to the court without a jury.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Juan Moises Blanco v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Cornyn v. Fifty-Two Members of the Schoppa Family
70 S.W.3d 895 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Weidrick v. Arnold
835 S.W.2d 843 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1992)
Hill v. Lower Colorado River Authority
568 S.W.2d 473 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Gray v. Saint Matthews Cathedral Endowment Fund, Inc.
544 S.W.2d 488 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Lokey v. Texas Methodist Foundation
479 S.W.2d 260 (Texas Supreme Court, 1972)
Lokey v. Texas Methodist Foundation
468 S.W.2d 945 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Coffee v. William Marsh Rice University
403 S.W.2d 340 (Texas Supreme Court, 1966)
City of Beaumont v. Fertitta
392 S.W.2d 479 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Coffee v. William Marsh Rice University
387 S.W.2d 132 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
State v. Myers
280 S.W.2d 327 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Powers v. First Natl. Bank of Corsicana
161 S.W.2d 273 (Texas Supreme Court, 1942)
State Ex Rel. Carmichael v. Bibb
173 So. 74 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 S.W.2d 813, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-city-of-beaumont-texapp-1929.