TLG

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

Constitution Discussion

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

Revision as of 09:34, July 12, 2023

9 bytes removed ,  July 12, 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
The Declaration of Rights in the Republic of Texas constitution (1836) and the Bill of Rights in each of the state's first four constitutions (1845, 1861, 1866, & 1869) contained a section with the same substantive language as this section.
The Declaration of Rights in the Republic of Texas constitution (1836) and the Bill of Rights in each of the state's first four constitutions (1845, 1861, 1866, & 1869) contained a section with the same substantive language as this section.


Note that only a few other states have a similar provision in their constitutions. Cf. ''City of Memphis v. Memphis Water Co.'', 52 Tenn. 495, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Tenn._495.pdf#page=35 529] (1871) ("We know of no better definition of a monopoly, than that given by Lord Coke, . . .").
Note that only a few other states have a similar provision in their constitutions. Cf. ''City of Memphis v. Memphis Water Co.'', 52 Tenn. 495, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Tenn_495.pdf#page=35 529] (1871) ("We know of no better definition of a monopoly, than that given by Lord Coke, . . .").


|recent=
|recent=
Line 17: Line 17:
|historic=
|historic=


* ''Brooker v. Brooker'', 106 S.W.2d 247, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/106_S.W.2d_247.pdf#page=8 254] (Tex. 1937) ("Construed as above, we are further compelled to the conclusion that this will, as regards the trust estate, attempts to create a perpetuity in violation and contravention of section 26 of article 1 of our State Constitution. . . . According to our authorities, and also according to the authorities generally, the rule against perpetuities, as contained in the above constitutional provision, is that no interest within its scope is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the time of the creation of the interest, and in some instances the period of gestation will be added.")
* ''Brooker v. Brooker'', 106 S.W.2d 247, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/106_SW2_247.pdf#page=8 254] (Tex. 1937) ("Construed as above, we are further compelled to the conclusion that this will, as regards the trust estate, attempts to create a perpetuity in violation and contravention of section 26 of article 1 of our State Constitution. . . . According to our authorities, and also according to the authorities generally, the rule against perpetuities, as contained in the above constitutional provision, is that no interest within its scope is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the time of the creation of the interest, and in some instances the period of gestation will be added.")


* ''Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Marshall'', 76 S.W.2d 1007, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/076_SW2_1007.pdf#page=4 1010] (Tex. 1934) ("Could we say that, although section 26 of the Bill of Rights declares that monopolies shall never be allowed, yet, because of emergency conditions, the Legislature could pass laws for the purpose of allowing monopolies? Could we say that, although section 15 of the Bill of Rights declares that 'The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,' yet, because of emergency crime conditions, the Legislature, to preserve order and protect life and property, etc., would have the authority under the police power to suspend . . . . Obviously all these questions must be answered in the negative.")
* ''Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Marshall'', 76 S.W.2d 1007, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/076_SW2_1007.pdf#page=4 1010] (Tex. 1934) ("Could we say that, although section 26 of the Bill of Rights declares that monopolies shall never be allowed, yet, because of emergency conditions, the Legislature could pass laws for the purpose of allowing monopolies? Could we say that, although section 15 of the Bill of Rights declares that 'The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,' yet, because of emergency crime conditions, the Legislature, to preserve order and protect life and property, etc., would have the authority under the police power to suspend . . . . Obviously all these questions must be answered in the negative.")


* ''Ennis Waterworks v. City of Ennis'', 144 S.W. 930, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_144_SWR_930.pdf#page=5 934] (Tex. 1912) ("To such an extent has [''City of Brenham v. Brenham Water Co.''] been cited, discussed, and approved, not only in relation to the general principles of law announced against monopolies and perpetuities, but as to the legal effect to be given the language in which the contract is couched, that we are not willing to say the interpretation there given the language granting the right and privilege for a great length of time to furnish and supply the city and its inhabitants with water has not become, at least in this jurisdiction, a rule of construction worthy to be observed and adhered to.")
* ''Ennis Waterworks v. City of Ennis'', 144 S.W. 930, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/144_SW_930.pdf#page=5 934] (Tex. 1912) ("To such an extent has [''City of Brenham v. Brenham Water Co.''] been cited, discussed, and approved, not only in relation to the general principles of law announced against monopolies and perpetuities, but as to the legal effect to be given the language in which the contract is couched, that we are not willing to say the interpretation there given the language granting the right and privilege for a great length of time to furnish and supply the city and its inhabitants with water has not become, at least in this jurisdiction, a rule of construction worthy to be observed and adhered to.")


* ''City of Brenham v. Brenham Water Co.'', 4 S.W. 143, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/004_SW_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/004_SW_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.")
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/4573...4579"