4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 17 (view source)
Revision as of 11:05, July 10, 2023
, July 10, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
* ''Storrie v. Houston City St. Ry. Co.'', 46 S.W. 796, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_046_SWR_796.pdf#page=4 799] (Tex. 1898) ("This provision of the constitution was in force at the time the street-railway company acquired its right in the streets of Houston and before the mortgage of the trust company was executed. The rights of both the street-railway company and the mortgage company were acquired subject to the control of the legislature upon this question. The legislature had the right to enact the law of 1891, amending the charter of Houston, by which the liability of the street-car company for the cost of paving the street was enlarged.") | * ''Storrie v. Houston City St. Ry. Co.'', 46 S.W. 796, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_046_SWR_796.pdf#page=4 799] (Tex. 1898) ("This provision of the constitution was in force at the time the street-railway company acquired its right in the streets of Houston and before the mortgage of the trust company was executed. The rights of both the street-railway company and the mortgage company were acquired subject to the control of the legislature upon this question. The legislature had the right to enact the law of 1891, amending the charter of Houston, by which the liability of the street-car company for the cost of paving the street was enlarged.") | ||
* ''Travis County v. Trogden'', 31 S.W. 358, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Travis County v. Trogden'', 31 S.W. 358, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/031_SW_358.pdf#page=2 359] (Tex. 1895) ("In order to make such guaranty perfect, it was provided in 1876 that 'such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money.' The evil, however, did not exist in that class of cases where the right of eminent domain had been exercised in behalf of the state, whether directly, in its own name, or through one of its counties; for the state has control of its own finances and those of its governmental subdivisions . . . and the presumption must have been indulged that the state would deal justly with its citizens.") | ||
* ''City of Houston v. Houston City St. Ry. Co.'', 19 S.W. 127, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/019_SW_127.pdf#page=5 131] (Tex. 1892) ("[T]his particular clause of the constitution was intended to prohibit the legislature from granting any 'special privilege or immunity' in such way, or of such character, as that it could not be subsequently annulled or declared forfeited for such causes as might be defined by the law, or condemned in the exercise of eminent domain [] and it was further intended that 'all privileges and franchises' granted by the legislature, or under its authority, should at all times remain subject to legislative control and regulation.") | * ''City of Houston v. Houston City St. Ry. Co.'', 19 S.W. 127, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/019_SW_127.pdf#page=5 131] (Tex. 1892) ("[T]his particular clause of the constitution was intended to prohibit the legislature from granting any 'special privilege or immunity' in such way, or of such character, as that it could not be subsequently annulled or declared forfeited for such causes as might be defined by the law, or condemned in the exercise of eminent domain [] and it was further intended that 'all privileges and franchises' granted by the legislature, or under its authority, should at all times remain subject to legislative control and regulation.") | ||