City of Corpus Christi v. Jones, 144 SW 2d 388 - 1940

—it was held that the fact that the city engineer had issued a permit for the construction of a building for the manufacture of ice in a district in which such manufacture was prohibited and that the city officials had failed to inform the permittees that such use was not permitted did not estop the city from enforcing the provisions of the zoning ordinance.

If reasonable minds may differ as to whether or not a particular zoning restriction has a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare, no clear abuse of discretion is shown and the restriction must stand as a valid exercise of the city's police power.

St. art. 1013 (repealed; now, this section) which required publication of penal ordinances in such papers applied to cities chartered otherwise than by general law.

" `If the question is fairly debatable as to whether the zoning ordinance is arbitrary and unreasonable and has no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, the court will not interfere.'"

—city not estopped from enforcing zoning ordinance prohibiting ice manufacturing plant in a zoning district where landowner relied on an invalid building permit issued by city engineer

That a business located in a prohibited zone would be more profitable, or the property more valuable, than in another zone does not make the restrictive ordinance arbitrary and unreasonable.

—court looks at conditions as they existed on date of adoption when determining reasonableness of ordinance

It has been interpreted to mean that if substantial changes are made in a proposed zoning ordinance after hearing a new hearing must be conducted.

However, "[t] he fact that a city official or employee fails in certain particulars to enforce the regulation cannot render it invalid, nor estop the City from asserting its validity."