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

no edit summary
m (Text replacement - ")↵↵}}" to ") |seo_title= |seo_keywords= |seo_description= |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights }}")
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 23: Line 23:
* ''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_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.")


* ''Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Marshall'', 76 S.W.2d 1007, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/076_S.W.2d_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/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.")