4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 26: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 26 (view source)
Revision as of 09:21, July 12, 2023
, July 12, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
* ''City of Brenham v. Brenham Water Co.'', 4 S.W. 143, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_004_SWR_143.pdf#page=13 155-56] (Tex. 1887) ("It will not do to say that an exclusive right in a municipal corporation to operate water or gas works stands upon the same ground as does such exclusive right held by a private corporation or an individual. . . . The correction of abuses in its management, whereby oppression may be avoided, is in the hands of the people; while, on the other hand, such works are operated for private gain, with every incentive to oppression, without power, in those to be affected, to relieve themselves from it. In the one case the exclusive right may create a monopoly, and in the other not.") | * ''City of Brenham v. Brenham Water Co.'', 4 S.W. 143, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_004_SWR_143.pdf#page=13 155-56] (Tex. 1887) ("It will not do to say that an exclusive right in a municipal corporation to operate water or gas works stands upon the same ground as does such exclusive right held by a private corporation or an individual. . . . The correction of abuses in its management, whereby oppression may be avoided, is in the hands of the people; while, on the other hand, such works are operated for private gain, with every incentive to oppression, without power, in those to be affected, to relieve themselves from it. In the one case the exclusive right may create a monopoly, and in the other not.") | ||
* ''Macdonell v. I. & G. N. R'y Co.'', 60 Tex. 590, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Macdonell v. I. & G. N. R'y Co.'', 60 Tex. 590, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/060_Tex_590.pdf#page=7 596-97] (1884) ("A very essential element to constitute a monopoly is an exclusive right or privilege conferred on one person or association of persons by which they have the sole authority to pursue a given business. The averments of the petition not showing that the contract in question conferred any such exclusive right, it is not necessary further to inquire how far and what kind of exclusive privileges may be conferred without coming within the prohibition contained in sec. 26 of the Bill of Rights. For the error of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the petition the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.") | ||
* ''Paschal v. Acklin'', 27 Tex. 173, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/027_Tex_173.pdf#page=24 196] (1863) ("There remains but one other question that need be discussed. Appellees' counsel have maintained, in an argument of much zeal and cogency, that the special bequest in Franklin's will in favor of his brothers, upon the trusts therein declared, is in violation of our constitutional prohibition of perpetuities and entailments; and that the court must, therefore, hold it illegal and void. The solution of this question depends upon the fact, whether the devise in question can be sustained as a bequest for charitable uses. If so, it must be conceded that it does not come within the constitutional inhibition referred to.") | * ''Paschal v. Acklin'', 27 Tex. 173, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/027_Tex_173.pdf#page=24 196] (1863) ("There remains but one other question that need be discussed. Appellees' counsel have maintained, in an argument of much zeal and cogency, that the special bequest in Franklin's will in favor of his brothers, upon the trusts therein declared, is in violation of our constitutional prohibition of perpetuities and entailments; and that the court must, therefore, hold it illegal and void. The solution of this question depends upon the fact, whether the devise in question can be sustained as a bequest for charitable uses. If so, it must be conceded that it does not come within the constitutional inhibition referred to.") | ||