Archenhold Auto. Supply Co. v. City of Waco
| Decision Date | 13 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. A-10642,A-10642 |
| Citation | 396 S.W.2d 111 |
| Parties | ARCHENHOLD AUTOMOBILE SUPPLY CO., Petitioner, v. The CITY OF WACO, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Bryan, Wilson Olson & Stem, Waco, for petitioner.
Thomas R. Hunter, City Atty., Jones, Boyd, Westbrook & Lovelace, Waco, for respondent.
This is a companion case to DuPuy v. The City of Waco this day decided, Tex., 396 S.W.2d 103. It is likewise a suit against the City for damages under Article I, Sec. 17, of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St. resulting from the construction by the City of the South 17th Street viaduct. As in DuPuy, there was no physical appropriation of Petitioner's property and as the case reaches us it involves only the impairment of access rights. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court for Petitioner, Archenhold Automobile Supply Company, based on the favorable jury verdict, and rendered judgment for the City; its holding was that '* * * the construction of the viaduct by the City was a valid exercise of its police power, and since appellee has access to its property as herein stated, and has not been denied total access to its property, there is no taking, and the loss and inconvenience it may have sustained is noncompensable.' 386 S.W.2d 174, 180. We granted the application for writ of error in this case at the time of such action in DuPuy, and the cases were submitted together.
The physical facts pertaining to the property of Archenhold are depicted on the accompanying schematic diagram and are described in detail in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. In relation to the property of DuPuy considered in the companion case, the property of Archenhold is located immediately across what was South 17th Street. The major difference is that the Archenhold property extends to and fronts on Franklin Avenue, whereas the DuPuy property fronted on and had access to South 17th Street only. It may also be mentioned that the location of Archenhold's building and the viaduct leaves Archenhold with a twenty-five foot open space which is used for parking motor vehicles.
The basic contentions of the parties, and of the Attorney General and the attorneys for other cities filing amicus curiae briefs, are the same as in DuPuy. As there said, the initial and primary question for determination by the Court in a given situation is whether access rights have been impaired to an extent which constitutes a damage to property for a public use within the purview of Article I, Sec. 17, of the Constitution of Texas which provides that 'No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made * * *.' For the reasons expressed in DuPuy, such is not the case where a property owner is left with reasonable access, and this problem is to be resolved in the light of conditions affecting the particular property under review before and after construction of the public improvement. It is obvious that at both such times the property of Archenhold was more favorably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schmidt
...City of Houston v. Fox, 444 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.1969); DuPuy v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.1965); Archenhold Automobile Supply Co. v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.1965); State v. Baker Bros. Nursery, 366 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.1963); L-M-S, Inc. v. Blackwell, 149 Tex. 348, 233 S.W.2d 286 T......
-
City of San Antonio v. Guidry
...DuPuy v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.1965) (viaduct deprived landowner of reasonable access), with Archenhold Auto. Supply Co. v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.1965) (viaduct did not deprive neighbor, whose property fronted on a different street, of reasonable access). Damages cau......
-
Olivares v. City of San Antonio
...City of Beaumont v. Marks, 443 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.1969); DuPuy v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.1965); Archenhold Automobile Supply Co. v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.1965), and City of Houston v. Fox, 444 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.1969). A later case, also cited in the dissent as to another m......
-
Uvodich v. Arizona Bd. of Regents
...were merely Damnum absque injuria. Gayton v. Department of Highways, 149 Colo. 72, 367 P.2d 899 (1962); Archenhold Automobile Supply Company v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.1965); People v. Symons, COUNT TWO Count 2 realleged the allegations set forth in Count 1 as to the closing of th......