Hidalgo County v. Johnstone, 1974.
Decision Date | 26 January 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 1974.,1974. |
Citation | 137 S.W.2d 825 |
Parties | HIDALGO COUNTY et al. v. JOHNSTONE et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Ninety-second Judicial District Court, Hidalgo County; Bryce Ferguson, Judge.
Action by Lillie M. Johnstone and husband against Hidalgo County and others, to enjoin defendants from opening a county public road over a tract of land owned by the named plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Reversed and rendered.
Robert E. Kirkpatrick, of Mercedes, and A. J. Ross, Jr., of Edinburg, for appellants.
Cameron & Hardin and Fred W. Hofstetter, all of Edinburg, for appellees.
Mrs. Lillie M. Johnstone "joined pro forma" by her husband, T. P. Johnstone, brought this suit against Hidalgo County and officials of said county in their capacity as such, seeking to enjoin the defendants from laying out, opening or establishing a county public road over and across a 16 acre tract of land owned by Mrs. Johnstone. The defendants sought to justify the action of the Commissioners' Court and of the County Judge and Commissioners on the ground that all preliminary steps necessary to authorize such action had been lawfully taken.
Plaintiffs' pleadings, among other things, alleged that the order of the Commissioners' Court purporting to approve the findings of the report of the Jury of View "is illegal, if not entirely void, in that it orders a road to be laid out which is a different road than the one recommended in the said report of the Jury of View."
Plaintiffs further alleged: By a trial amendment plaintiff added allegations presenting the contention that "no necessity, public, private or otherwise, exists for opening the road" because there existed a road lying south of the block across the north end of which the new road was proposed to be opened, which the defendants had permitted to be closed for a number of years.
In a jury trial only one issue was submitted. The verdict thereon purported to find "from a clear preponderance of the evidence" that "no public necessity exists, under the conditions shown by the evidence, for a road to be laid out and opened connecting the east end of the road referred to in the evidence as the McAllen Road or Alamo Road with the south Val Verde Road."
Before submission of said issue, the court overruled a motion of defendants for an instructed verdict for them, and after return of said verdict overruled defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Sustaining motion of the plaintiffs for judgment in their favor upon the verdict, the court rendered such judgment, from which the defendants have appealed.
Plaintiffs' petition alleged that Mrs. Lillie M. Johnstone was the fee simple owner of the property in her own separate right and that she was served with a notice set out in said pleading, which appears to be sufficient and as to the sufficiency of which no complaint is made, except that such notice was not served upon her husband, T. P. Johnstone, who is living with her upon said land as their homestead. It is contended by appellees that condemnation of the land was void because of lack of notice to the husband of the owner. Upon this point neither party has cited us to any authority which can be considered of any material aid, nor have we found any. The question here is relevant only as involving the further question of jurisdiction of the Commissioners' Court to condemn and assess damages. It is our view that notice to the wife as owner was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Kansas City v. State Highway Commission
... ... of Missouri at the relation of Kansas City, Missouri, and Clay County, Missouri, Relators, v. State Highway Commission of Missouri No ... most clearly proven). Hildalgo County v. Johnstone, ... 137 S.W.2d 825; Howlette v. Social Security Comm., ... 149 ... ...
-
State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Curtis
...in place of the fraudulently expressed judgment of the agent. People v. Milton, 35 Cal.App. (2d) 549, 96 P.2d 159; Hidalgo County v. Johnstone, 137 S.W.2d 825. While, under Missouri Constitution, 1945, Art. I, Sec. 28, whether or not the project (Waynesville By-Pass) is intended for private......
-
Doughty v. DeFee, 5201.
...conclusive. West Production Co. et al. v. Penn, Judge, et al., Tex. Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 131, writ refused; Hidalgo County et al. v. Johnstone et al., Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 825, writ dismissed, correct By his ninth proposition the appellant asserts the commissioners' court was without au......
-
Rodriguez v. Vera
...in Eastland County v. Davisson, Tex.Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 673; King v. Falls County, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 481; Hidalgo County v. Johnstone, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 825; Ham v. Garvey, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d It has been said that an order of the commissioners' court cannot be considered ......