of the ultimate jurisdictional facts unless the City conclusively established that it did not act fraudulently or in bad faith in determining that it had more than 5,000 inhabitants. From our review of the jurisdictional evidence, we conclude that the property owners raised more than a scintilla of evidence that the City acted with bad faith in determining that it met the inhabitancy requirement for calling a home-rule election. The courts have not defined “bad faith” in this specific context, but in passing on the validity of municipal ordinances have inquired into the “good faith” motives of those enacting them and the extent to which their actions are in furtherance of the policies of this State. See City of San Antonio v. Wallace, 161 Tex. 41, 338 S.W.2d 153, 156-57 (1960) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the property owners
holding that action of city legislative body may be judicially examined in light of its surrounding circumstances prior and subsequent actions of such legislative body and public policy in order to determine good faith of questioned action holding acts of voting to be quintessentially legislative and the introduction of a budget to be formally legislative holding complaint allegations must be examined in light of parties contractual terms recognizing that member of local governmental body does not necessarily act in legislative capacity when participation takes form of vote recognizing that although there was no property in a dead body at common law  the one whose duty it is to care for the body of the deceased is entitled to possession of the body as it is when death comes and that it is an actionable wrong for another to interfere with that right by withholding the body or mutilating it in any way