Cane Belt Ry. Co. v. Hughes
| Citation | 72 S.W. 1020 |
| Parties | CANE BELT RY. CO. v. HUGHES et ux. |
| Decision Date | 09 March 1903 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from Matagorda County Court; Jesse Matthews, Judge.
Proceeding by the Cane Belt Railway Company to condemn land of Woodford Hughes and wife for depot purposes. From the judgment entered on appeal of the landowners from the award of damages of the commissioners, the railway company appeals. Reversed.
C. E. Lane and E. F. Higgins, for appellant. Gaines & Holland, for appellees.
This proceeding was instituted by appellant against the appellees to condemn for depot purposes lot No. 3 and the west half of lot No. 2 in block 7 of the town of Matagorda, in Matagorda county, Tex. On a hearing before commissioners appointed for the purpose, appellees were awarded damages in the sum of $500. On appeal by them to the county court they recovered $825, and were awarded the right to remove their improvements. From this judgment the railway company has appealed to this court, and, as cause for reversal, has assigned errors on the admission of testimony, the amount of the judgment, and the verdict awarding the right to remove the improvements.
Over the objection of the company, the court admitted testimony to the effect that the company owned other property adjacent, which was equally as suitable for depot purposes as the property condemned, and this is assailed as error. The evidence adduced did not present the issue of the right to condemn. That was shown beyond dispute, and the court, so holding, did not submit the issue to the jury. The evidence complained of could not have lawfully affected the issue, for it is well settled that as to what land a railway company may select for its right of way and depot grounds the discretion of the company is absolute, and will not be revised by the courts. In the proper construction of railways and their necessary appurtenances, the public have a large interest, and for this reason the power of eminent domain is conferred. If different courts and juries were allowed to pass on the necessity or advisability of condemning each tract out of the many which go to make up a right of way for a railway line, straight courses from point to point, with the consequent lessening of mileage, would in many, if not all, cases be impossible to secure. So in the case of depot grounds. One jury might hold, on competent evidence, that the land in question was not necessary to the purposes of the railroad. Another might render a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arcola Sugar Mills Co. v. Houston Lighting & P. Co.
...29 Tex.Civ.App. 340, 69 S.W. 229; McInnis v. Brown County, Water Imp. Dist. No. 1, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 741; Cane Belt R. Co. v. Hughes, 31 Tex.Civ. App. 565, 72 S.W. 1020. (2) "The undisputed evidence proved as a matter of law that appellee, having the right of condemnation and exercisi......
-
Larsen, Matter of
...thus invaded is fixed and determined by the law on the basis of value, and all elements of sentiment are excluded.Cane Belt R. Co. v. Hughes , 72 S.W. 1020, 1020 (Tx 1903). (Emphasis added). Other less sentimental courts have extended the price of citizenship justification to include damage......
-
Housing Authority v. Higginbotham
...that the trial court correctly refused to submit to the jury the question of the necessity of taking the land; Cane Belt Ry. Co. v. Hughes, 31 Tex.Civ.App. 565, 72 S.W. 1020, in which the reason for the rule stated is discussed; Imperial Irrigation Company v. Jayne, 104 Tex. 395, 138 575, A......
-
Whittington v. City of Austin
...to be subjected to its uses, and by such a course the company could be excluded altogether. Id. at 89 (quoting Cane Belt Ry. Co. v. Hughes, 31 Tex.Civ.App. 565, 72 S.W. 1020, 1020 (1903, no writ)). When addressing any such issues on remand, the trial court must be cognizant of these limitat......