Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Tarrant Co. W. Control, Etc.
Decision Date | 30 May 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 6384.,6384. |
Citation | 73 S.W.2d 55 |
Parties | CHICAGO, R. I. & G. RY. CO. v. TARRANT COUNTY WATER CONTROL & IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. I |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
W. F. Peter, of Chicago, Ill., C. T. Gettys, of Decatur, Robert Harrison, of Fort Worth, and Ocie Speer, of Austin, for appellant.
Samuels, Foster, Brown & McGee and Ireland Hampton, all of Fort Worth, for appellee.
This case is here on certified question. The suit arose out of a statutory effort on the part of appellee to condemn for its corporate purposes certain lands upon which the appellant had constructed, and for some twenty-five years has maintained, its roadbed, tracks, etc. The appellant, Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company, a railroad corporation, chartered under the laws of Texas, owns and operates a line of railroad which runs through Wise, Tarrant, and other counties, in the former of which, on a branch line running from Bridgeport, in Wise county, to Graham, in Young county, is located the locus of this controversy. The appellee is a water control and improvement district, a governmental agency, body corporate and politic, organized under the Constitution and laws of this state, and is entitled to condemn the property in controversy. The statutes relative to the organization of the district, its purposes and operations, are elaborate ones, designed to accomplish the objects specified in the conservation amendment to the Constitution, compliance with which is here admitted. Vernon's Complete Texas Statutes, title 128, c. 3A, Acts 39th Leg. c. 25, Acts 41st Leg. c. 280 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. tit. 128, c. 3A).
The constitutional provision referred to, section 59a, article 16, adopted by vote of the people on August 21, 1917, in part reads as follows:
The appellee in its brief summarizes the objects sought to be accomplished by it, in aid of which the improvements here involved were being constructed, as follows:
The extent and magnitude of appellee's activities are shown in the testimony of its engineer, Nichols, from which we quote as follows:
The constructions giving rise to this controversy are on the West fork of the Trinity river, in Wise county, and consist of a large dam across the river about four miles west from the town of Bridgeport, and a levee, known as the Berkshire levee, in the same area, but approximately five miles southwest of the town; the purpose of the structures being to impound and hold the waters of the river and its attendant tributaries in a large reservoir designated on the map as Bridgeport Lake. See Exhibits A and B from the record, shown here in reduced scale.
By referring to these exhibits, the precise question here involved may be readily understood. Bridgeport Lake, which will be made by the construction of appellee, is the shaded area on Exhibit B and will submerge 3.9791 miles of appellant's railway, of an agreed value of $128,538. West of the shaded area, and between the flood shore line of the lake and the station of Vineyard, and east of the lake between its flood shore line and the point indicated at the intersection of appellant's railway and the "Proposed Relocation" are two sections of appellant's railway, which, while not to be covered by the waters of the lake, nevertheless will be "dead ends" and of no practical value, as we view the record. The distance from Vineyard on the north, through the lake, following appellant's railway to its intersection with the line of the proposed relocation, is 9.54 miles, of an agreed value of $243,000. The distance from Vineyard, following the line of the "Proposed Relocation," passing west of the lake, and to the point of intersection with appellant's railway, east of the lake, is 10.65 miles. The agreed cost of relocating and reconstructing appellant's line along this course would be approximately $399,000.
The question certified by the Court of Civil Appeals is: Which of these amounts represents the true measure of damages due appellant under the Constitution and statutes?
The Trinity river and its tributaries, in which are included the streams involved in this immediate controversy, constitute one of the great river systems of the state, with a drainage area of some 17,000 square miles. Its headwater tributaries rise east of the breaks of the plains and south of Red river in the counties of Archer, Clay, Montague, and Cook, and form the the main stream of the Trinity in Dallas county, which then runs in a southeasterly direction some 450 miles into Trinity Bay, one of the arms of the Gulf of Mexico. U. S. Geo. Survey Water Supply Paper No. 448, p. 243.
Each sovereignty which has exercised jurisdiction over the territory constituting Texas —that is, Mexico, the state of Texas, and the United States—has regarded the Trinity river as a stream navigable in fact, and from time to time enacted laws...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brazos River Authority v. City of Graham
...Dist. No. 1 v. City of Fort Worth, 106 Tex. 148, 158 S.W. 164, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 994; Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1, 123 Tex. 432, 73 S.W.2d 55; Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. Fowler, Tex.Civ.App., 17......
-
Adjudication of the Water Rights of Upper Guadalupe Segment of Guadalupe River Basin, In re
...Texas Water Rights Commission v. Wright, 464 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex.1971); Chicago, R.I., & G. Ry. Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1, 123 Tex. 432, 447-48, 73 S.W.2d 55, 64 (1934); Board of Water Engineers v. McKnight, 111 Tex. 82, 92, 229 S.W. 301, 305 (1921); Big......
-
DuPuy v. City of Waco, A-10644
...has damaged the property of one citizen.' It was recognized by this Court in Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, 123 Tex. 432, 73 S.W.2d 55 (1934), that our Constitution and statutes have been construed generally to authorize the recov......
-
State v. Hale
...District No. 1 v. City of Ft. Worth, 106 Tex. 148, 158 S.W. 164, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 994; Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1, 123 Tex. 432, 73 S.W.2d 55; City of Waco v. Roberts, 121 Tex. 217, 48 S.W.2d Among the States having constitutional......