Choctaw, O. & T. R. Co. v. True
| Decision Date | 26 March 1904 |
| Citation | 80 S.W. 120 |
| Parties | CHOCTAW, O. & T. R. CO. v. TRUE et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Ira Webster, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Ellen True and others against the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Texas Railroad Company, in which defendant sought condemnation of lands. From a judgment in favor of defendant for the land sought, and for damages for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Reeder & Cooper, for appellant. Wallace & Lumpkin, for appellees.
This was an action in trespass and for damages, in which appellees allege that appellant is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Texas; that appellees were the owners of lot No. 5 in block No. 158 and block No. 143, containing lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, in the town of Amarillo; that on or about the 1st day of May, 1903, appellant unlawfully entered upon said land and ejected appellees therefrom, and still withholds possession thereof, to appellees' damage in the sum of $1,500; that appellant appropriated all of said lot No. 5 in block 158, the market value of which is $125; that appellees had their home upon block 143, and had erected thereon their residence, barns, outbuildings, well, windmill, and tanks, making the same a desirable home; that across the southeast corner of said block 143 appellant had erected an embankment about 30 feet high, which causes the dust to blow therefrom on appellees' home, making it an undesirable place; that said block of land was of the market value of $2,000; and that since said acts said block is of the market value of $1,000. Appellant pleaded a general denial, and, in reconvention, to have the land appropriated by it condemned under the statutes for right of way purposes The case was tried upon appellant's plea, and resulted in a judgment in favor of appellant for the land sought, and in favor of appellees for $450 damages.
We find no reversible error presented on this appeal from the judgment stated, and nothing requiring extended discussion.
It is urged that the court was in error in permitting appellees to offer evidence to the effect that the embankment mentioned in the petition obstructed appellees' view of the city of Amarillo, and impeded the wind in such manner and from such direction as to largely damage or impair the use of the windmill on appellees' premises. The objection was that such damages were special in character, and had not been alleged in appellees'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. City of Fargo
...N.W. 441; Cosgriff v. Tri-state T. & T. Co. 15 N.D. 210, 107 N.W. 525; Aldes v. Union Elevator Co. 203 Ill. 567, 68 N.E. 95; Choctaw R. Co. v. True, 80 S.W. 120; v. Portland, 18 Or. 237, 27 P. 899; Campbell v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 82 Ga. 320, 9 S.E. 1070; Griffin v. Shreveport & A.R. ......
-
Kennedy v. City of Dallas
...of damages produced by such condemnation proceedings. Article 3265, R.S. 1925; Rev.Stats. art. 3266, subd. 6; Choctaw O. & T. R. v. True, 35 Tex.Civ.App. 309, 80 S.W. 120; Dallas P. & S. E. R. v. Day et al., 3 Tex.Civ.App. 353, 22 S.W. 538; Wichita Falls & W. R. v. Wyrick, Tex.Civ.App., 158......
-
Trinity & B. V. Ry. Co. v. Geary
...claimed error harmless and not reviewable, in the absence of any complaint that the verdict is excessive. Choctaw, Ok. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. True, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 309, 80 S. W. 120; H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 503, 45 S. W. 179; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Burk, 1......
-
Schooler v. State
...appears, and that abuse of the trial court's discretion in overruling the challenge for cause is not shown. Choctaw, O. & T. R. Co. v. True, 35 Tex.Civ.App. 309, 80 S.W. 120; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Contois, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W. 929, at page 935, affirmed, Tex.Com.App., 288 S.W. ......