Craig v. Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 25 March 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 8346.) |
Citation | 185 S.W. 944 |
Parties | CRAIG et al. v. FT. WORTH & D. C. RY. CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; J. W. Akin, Judge.
Injunction proceedings by John Craig and another against the Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company and others. From a judgment denying the injunction, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
See, also, 176 S. W. 827.
T. R. Boone, of Wichita Falls, for appellants. Carrigan, Montgomery & Britain, of Wichita Falls, and Thompson & Barwise and G. W. Wharton, all of Ft. Worth, for appellees.
In the year 1911 the Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company, the Wichita Valley Railway Company, the Wichita Falls & Oklahoma Railway Company, and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company filed condemnation proceedings to subject for their use a strip of land 24.48 feet wide from east to west and 100 feet long from north to south situated in the city of Wichita Falls, Tex., lying south of Seventh street, and bounded on the north by the south line of said street, the St. Charles Hotel Building lying west of and adjacent to said strip, and the right of way of the Ft. Worth & Denver City Railway Company being adjacent to said strip on its east line. The purpose of said condemnation, as shown in the petition therefor, was as follows:
"Your petitioners would represent and show to the court that it is necessary for said railway company to acquire the possession of said above-described property for the purpose of placing a brick sidewalk upon same to furnish ingress and egress to and from the Union Depot so to be constructed and now in the course of construction, and for the purpose of acquiring the ground upon which to lay one coach track and industrial track, and for additional depot and station ground for said sidewalk as aforesaid."
Upon that petition a decree of condemnation was awarded in which the following appears:
"It is further adjudged and decreed that the sum awarded by said commissioners herein as damages to the adjacent property belonging to said Mrs. Adeline Rucks and the other defendants is only for the construction and maintenance of the two railway tracks described in plaintiff's original petition filed herein, which two tracks are described and to be located in said property taken, said tracks to be for one coach track and for one industrial track, said track to be laid on the eastern border and said industrial track to be located across said property between said coach track and the said St. Charles Hotel Building, the said property to be used also by said plaintiff as a brick walk thereon to furnish ingress and egress to the Union Depot, and that said sum does not compensate said defendants for any other damage for any other use of said property."
On February 2, 1915, John Craig and Lee Downs, lessees of the St. Charles Hotel Building, instituted the present suit to restrain the railway companies from maintaining an iron fence which had theretofore been erected about 8 feet high within 6 or 8 inches of the east wall of the hotel building, and running the entire length of said building, and for a mandatory injunction requiring the railway company to remove said fence, and for damages to their business by reason of the erection of said fence; and from a judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs have appealed.
This case was before us on a former appeal and, our opinion then rendered appears in 176 S. W. 827. The case was tried by the court without the aid of a jury, and the trial judge filed findings of fact which included, among others, the facts recited above. Other findings by the court are as follows, omitting therefrom the unnecessary repetition of the expression "The court finds that," with which nearly every paragraph of the findings begins, and so changing the language used as to state the findings in a narrative form, but without any other change:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gillespie v. Board of Com'rs of Albany County
... ... Town of Darieu, 162 A. 837; Shell Pipe Line Corp. v ... Woodfolk, 53 S.W.2d 917; Wood v. Dake Land & Imp ... Co., 81 S.E. 422; Craig v. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry ... Co. (Texas) 185 S.W. 944. Appellant in acquiring the ... right of way for the road, may make any use of it for ... ...
-
Aycock v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.
...the law that railroad companies have the right and duty under certain circumstances to fence their rights of way. Craig v. Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W. 944. Such right as to railroad is statutory under some circumstances and under some circumstances a common-law right. ......
-
Shelton v. City of Abilene
...the underpass is analogous, it seems to us, to the construction and maintenance of the fence considered in Craig v. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 944, 947, as to which it was said: "* * * the maintenance of the fence is not an additional use of the property, but rath......