Brazos River Conservation and R. Dist. v. Belcher
| Decision Date | 24 June 1942 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 15470. |
| Citation | 163 S.W.2d 183 |
| Parties | BRAZOS RIVER CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION DIST. v. BELCHER, District Judge, et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
T. T. Bouldin, of Mineral Wells, and Samuels, Foster, Brown & McGee, of Fort Worth, for the motion.
No appearance for respondents.
The Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation District, hereinafter referred to as the District, seeks leave to file a petition for mandamus against the Honorable Ernest Belcher, District Judge of the Twenty-ninth Judicial District Court, Palo Pinto County, and others, to require him to enter an order permitting the District to withdraw from the registry of the court a sum of money placed there by the District as security in a condemnation proceeding.
In a former action E. P. Costello and others sought to enjoin the District from closing certain vents in a dam, to prevent their land from being overflowed. The District brought a cross action, under Article 3269, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, to condemn the land. The trial court held that the District had no right to condemn the land by way of cross action, and the injunction was granted. But in its judgment the court further provided that, in the event the judgment should be reversed on appeal, then the District should deposit in the registry of the court the sum of $500,000, to secure the individual landowners for any damage to their land. The action of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation Dist. v. Costello, 142 S.W.2d 414), but this Court, after granting a writ of error, held that the District had the right to condemn by cross action under Article 3269, supra, and reversed the case with the following instructions: "* * * the trial court is instructed that when said District has deposited in cash the sum allowed the land owners by said court, and has met all requirements of the law and has complied with all orders that said court may deem proper to protect said money and the rights of the land owners, the said writ of injunction issued by the trial court shall be dissolved, and said District shall be allowed to close the vents in said dam and take possession of said property * * *." Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation District v. Costello et al., 135 Tex. 307, 143 S.W.2d 577, 580, 130 A.L.R. 1220.
Pursuant to that judgment the trial court entered an order reciting its former order requiring the District to deposit in the registry of the court the sum of $500,000, and specified that such money...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dallas v. Dixon
...its judgment in the first suit. Milam County Oil Mill Co. v. Bass, 106 Tex. 260, 163 S.W. 577; Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation Dist. v. Belcher, 139 Tex. 368, 163 S.W.2d 183; Iley v. Hughes, 158 Tex. 362, 311 S.W.2d 648, 85 A.L.R.2d 1. If the rule were otherwise, the defense of re......
-
Fulton v. Finch
...v. McCraw, 132 Tex. 613, 126 S.W.2d 627; City of Galveston v. Mann, 135 Tex 319, 143 S.W.2d 1028; Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation Dist. v. Belcher, 139 Tex. 368, 163 S.W.2d 183; Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360, 190 S.W.2d 709, 172 A.L.R. 837; Industrial Accident Board v. Glenn, 1......
-
Grant v. Ammerman
...the office of Place 1, Justice Precinct 5, he should invoke that court's jurisdiction. Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation Dist. v. Belcher, 139 Tex. 368, 163 S.W.2d 183 (1942); Glenn v. Milam, 114 Tex. 160, 263 S.W. 900 (1924); Matthaei v. Clark, 110 Tex. 114, 216 S.W. 856 We grant r......
-
Brown v. Strake
...Improvement District No. 2 v. Blalock, 157 Tex. 206, 208, 301 S.W.2d 593, 594 (1957); Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation District v. Belcher, 139 Tex. 368, 371, 163 S.W.2d 183, 184 (1942); State v. Ferguson, 133 Tex. 60, 125 S.W.2d 272 (1939). The supreme court's action in overruling......