TLG

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 26: Difference between revisions

Constitution Discussion

Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 26 (view source)

Revision as of 09:18, July 12, 2023

No change in size ,  July 12, 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 27: Line 27:
* ''Macdonell v. I. & G. N. R'y Co.'', 60 Tex. 590, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/60_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.")
* ''Macdonell v. I. & G. N. R'y Co.'', 60 Tex. 590, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/60_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/27_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.")


* ''Hancock v. Butler'', 21 Tex. 804, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/021_Tex_804.pdf#page=10 813] (1858) ("In the American states, perpetuities, entailments, and the right of primogeniture were generally prohibited by their written constitution; and the antagonism of classes never having existed here, the public mind was at ease on the subject of the encroachments of the power of property. Hence our decisions have not always kept pace with the English decisions in disregarding the qualifying words which formerly in their own courts took the case out of the rule. See opinions of Chief Justice Marshall, 10 B. Mon. 56, in which he adheres to former decisions and declines to follow the then late case of Jesson v. Wright.")
* ''Hancock v. Butler'', 21 Tex. 804, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/021_Tex_804.pdf#page=10 813] (1858) ("In the American states, perpetuities, entailments, and the right of primogeniture were generally prohibited by their written constitution; and the antagonism of classes never having existed here, the public mind was at ease on the subject of the encroachments of the power of property. Hence our decisions have not always kept pace with the English decisions in disregarding the qualifying words which formerly in their own courts took the case out of the rule. See opinions of Chief Justice Marshall, 10 B. Mon. 56, in which he adheres to former decisions and declines to follow the then late case of Jesson v. Wright.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/4569"