City of Texarkana v. Reagan
| Decision Date | 17 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3764.) |
| Citation | 247 S.W. 816 |
| Parties | CITY OF TEXARKANA v. REAGAN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Wm. V. Brown and Keeney & Dalby, all of Texarkana, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. S. Todd and Thos. N. Graham, both of Texarkana, and W. T. Williams, of Austin, for defendant in error.
Prior to April 20, 1919, defendant in error was the owner of a frame building in the city of Texarkana, Tex., which she had owned for more than 10 years. While she was absent, and without her consent, the city, plaintiff in error here, demolished the building and sold the lumber and material therefrom for $100, which it offered to her, but which was refused. She filed suit against the city in February, 1921, for the value of the building. The city defended on the ground that it had condemned and destroyed the building as a nuisance under its charter and ordinances. The trial court awarded defendant in error the amount tendered by the city. Defendant in error appealed the case, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the cause. 238 S. W. 717. A writ of error was granted, and the case is here for review.
The special charter of the city authorized it "to declare all dilapidated buildings in said city to be nuisances and to direct the same to be repaired, removed, or abated in such manner as shall be prescribed by said council." Whether or not the city charter contained any other provision authorizing the city to define and abate nuisances we are unadvised, except by the finding of the trial court that the city was duly authorized by its charter to define and abate nuisances, as well as to declare all dilapidated buildings to be nuisances. This finding of the trial judge obviates the necessity of passing on the validity of the charter provision quoted, but certainly this provision ought to be reexamined by the city authorities, in view of the holding made by this court in the case of Crossman v. City of Galveston, 247 S. W. 810, this day decided, but not yet reported.
The ordinance relied upon by the city as authority for the destruction of the building reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dallas v. Stewart
...have long held that the government commits no taking when it abates what is, in fact, a public nuisance. See City of Texarkana v. Reagan, 112 Tex. 317, 247 S.W. 816, 817 (1923). Nuisance determinations are typically dispositive in takings cases.11 Indeed, that was the case here: except for ......
-
Friendswood Development Co. v. Smith-Southwest Industries, Inc.
...approved by our Texas courts. Storey v. Central Hide & Rendering Co., 148 Tex. 509, 226 S.W.2d 615 (1950); City of Texarkana v. Reagan, 112 Tex. 317, 247 S.W. 816 (1923); Crossman v. City of Galveston, 112 Tex. 303, 247 S.W. 810 (1923); Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. De Groff, 102 Tex. 43......
-
Rhyne v. Town of Mount Holly
...of Joliet, 237 Ill. 300, 86 N.E. 663, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 1128; City of Forney v. Mounger, Tex.Civ.App., 210 S.W. 240; City of Texarkana v. Reagan, 112 Tex. 317, 247 S.W. 816; Moll Co. v. Holstner, 252 Ky. 249, 67 S.W.2d 1; Oglesby v. Town of Winnfield, La.App., 27 So.2d 137; McMahon v. City o......
-
Amaya v. City of San Antonio
...abates what is, in fact, a public nuisance.” City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562, 569 (Tex.2012) (citing City of Texarkana v. Reagan, 112 Tex. 317, 247 S.W. 816, 817 (1923)). Thus, a finding that property is a public nuisance will generally be dispositive of a “takings” claim. Id. “Th......