International Bridge & Tramway Co. v. McLane
| Citation | 28 S.W. 454 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE & TRAMWAY CO. v. McLANE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1894 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Action of trespass to try title by A. L. McLane against the International Bridge & Tramway Company. Defendant appeals from a judgment condemning the land to its use upon its paying plaintiff for the improvements thereon. Reversed.
McLeary & Stayton, for appellant. E. A. Atlee, for appellee.
The defendant in error sued plaintiff in error in the ordinary form of trespass to try title to a certain lot of ground in Laredo. Plaintiff in error, after disclaiming title to the land, alleged in its answer, by way of a cross bill, that by authority of an ordinance of the city of Laredo it constructed a bridge across the Rio Grande, placing the same, with its abutments and a toll house, in Convent street of said city; that under said ordinance it had a right to occupy said street and other city property with said bridge and approaches thereto; that it built the abutments of said bridge and toll house appurtenant thereto upon Convent street and city property lying along and immediately adjacent to the river, as it then believed and still believes, and that, if any portion of its bridge or of its toll house is upon the lot in controversy, it was placed there by mistake as to the true location of said lot, and that it never knowingly took possession of or used the lot to the exclusion of the right or interest of defendant in error; that it is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Texas, empowered and authorized to construct a bridge across the Rio Grande at Laredo, Tex., and to collect tolls for crossing the same, and it is necessary to the complete carrying out of its chartered rights and privileges, and purposes of incorporation, that its bridge should have ample abutments on either bank of the river, and that it should have a toll or guard house attached thereto for a keeper to guard and protect the bridge and collect the tolls; and, if any portions of the abutments and toll house are upon the lot, so much of it as is so actually occupied is necessary to the full and complete use and enjoyment of the rights and privileges conferred by its charter; and in that event it prays that such part of the land be condemned to its use, etc., and for general relief. The defendant in error (plaintiff below) excepted to so much of the answer as sought to condemn the land, for the reasons it did not show plaintiff in error (defendant below) entitled by law to ask and have such condemnation, and the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant such relief. This exception was presented to and overruled by the court, and an exception to the ruling reserved by defendant in error. Upon the cause being submitted to the court without a jury, the judge, in his conclusions of fact, found (1) that the plaintiff is the owner of the land sued for; (2) that defendant had part of the abutment of its bridge and toll house on the lot; (3) that the part of the premises so occupied by defendant is of the rental value of $7.50 per month; (4) that the property so occupied by defendant, including the improvements upon it by the bridge company, is reasonably worth $400; (5) that the land, exclusive of the improvements, is worth $20; and (6) that defendant is a corporation of the state of Texas, with the right to construct a bridge across the Rio Grande, which it built in 1889, with one of its abutments, together with a toll house, on the east bank of the river, and that such abutment and toll house are necessary to the purposes for which the defendant company was incorporated. Upon these facts the trial judge predicated the following conclusions of law: "(1) That plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for his rents, to be estimated at $7.50 per month from the 12th day of July, 1891;" and "(2) that under defendant's plea the court has the power, and it is its duty, to condemn to the use of defendant company the property occupied by it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Piney Point Village v. Harris County
...the contract is valid it did not purport to give the County the right to condemn. It cities the case of International Bridge and Tramway Co. v. McLane, 8 Tex.Civ.App. 665, 28 S.W. 454. That was a case where the Tramway Company contended its charter authorized it to construct a bridge across......
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Second Street Improvement Company
...v. Railroad, 1 N.W. 816; Railroad v. Whitney, 99 N.W. 525; Railroad v. Mosier, 13 P. 300; Justice v. Railroad, 87 Pa. St. 28; Railroad v. McLane, 28 S.W. 454; Railroad Stancliff, 7 P. 530; Railroad v. Corbett, 60 P. 127; Lyon v. Railroad, 42 Wis. 538. (3) In instructing the jury to make the......
-
McClarren v. Jefferson School Township
... ... New Orleans, ... etc., Assn. (1881), 70 Ala. 227, 232; International ... Bridge, etc., Co. v. McLane (1894), 8 Tex. Civ ... App. 665, 28 ... ...
-
McClarren v. Jefferson Sch. Tp.
...300, 58 Am. Rep. 321;Justice v. Railway Co., 87 Pa. 28, 31; Jones v. N. O. & S. R. Co., 70 Ala. 227, 232; International, etc., Co. v. McLane, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 665, 28 S. W. 454;Searl v. School Dist., 133 U. S. 553, 10 Sup. Ct. 374, 33 L. Ed. 740;Aldridge v. Board of Education, 15 Okl. 354, ......