Adams v. San Angelo Waterworks Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1894
• Citation: 25 S.W. 605
• Parties: ADAMS et al. v. SAN ANGELO WATERWORKS CO. et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 605

25 S.W. 605

ADAMS et al. v.SAN ANGELO WATERWORKS CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 12, 1894.

Certified questions from court of civil appeals of third supreme judicial district.

Application by the San Angelo Waterworks Company to condemn certain land.There was judgment of condemnation, from which Adams and Wickes appealed.The court of civil appeals reversed the judgment, (25 S. W. 165,) and certified certain questions to the supreme court.

Joseph Spence, Jr., and Cochran & Hill, for appellants.Mays & Wright, for appellees.

GAINES, J.

The court of civil appeals submit, with an accompanying statement, the following questions for our determination: "(1)Appellants contend that the act of the legislature, approved April 8, 1889, amending the act of March 28, 1883, authorizing condemnation proceedings by cities and towns, (Laws 1889, p. 3,) is unconstitutional, because it authorizes condemnation of property for other purposes than those designated in the caption of the bill.(2) If the act be valid, it is contended by appellants that it does not authorize any person or corporation, other than a municipal corporation, to have property condemned for the purpose of constructing water mains.In other words, the contention is that, as the statute confers upon private corporations chartered for the purpose of constructing waterworks or furnishing water for any town or city the same authority conferred upon the town or city to condemn property for the purpose of constructing reservoirs and standpipes, and omits water mains, no authority exists for a private corporation to condemn property for the latter purpose."The first section of the act in question grants to any incorporated city or town the power to condemn property "for the construction of water mains or supply reservoirs or standpipes for waterworks," as well as for certain other purposes, and provides that "any company or corporation chartered under the laws of this state for the purpose of constructing waterworks, or furnishing water supply for any town or city, shall have the same right to condemn property necessary for the construction of supply reservoirs or standpipes for waterworks when deemed necessary to preserve the public health, that is given towns and cities under this act."The title of the act is as follows: "An act to amend an act to regulate the condemnation of property in cities and towns, for the purpose of opening, widening or changing public streets or avenues or alleys, or for water mains or sewers, approved March 28, 1883."The language which follows the word "amend" in this title is a literal repetition of the title of the amended act.The provision of our constitution which bears upon the question is as follows: "No bill(except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts for and on account of which moneys are appropriated,) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed."Const. 1876, art. 3, § 35.Each of our former constitutions contained a similar provision, which reads as follows: "Every law enacted by the legislature shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title."The purpose of the change from the use of the word "`object" to that of "subject" is not manifest; nor is it quite clear that the amendment changes the meaning of the original...