Day v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 12 November 1884 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1683. |
| Citation | 62 Tex. 190 |
| Parties | GEORGE W. DAY v. B. J. CHAMBERS ET AL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Johnson. Tried below before the Hon. Jo Abbott.
This suit was brought by appellant to recover possession of a lot of ground in the city of Cleburne. The statement of the case made by appellant's counsel, and adopted by the judge who delivered the opinion, is unnecessary in view of the opinion, and quite too lengthy for insertion here. Appellant claimed an easement in a road laid down on the plat of the town of Cleburne as the “road to Alvarado,” with reference to the use of which he claimed that he purchased.
Prayer for the recovery of the premises, with damages, rents and profits and costs, or, in the alternative, for the recovery of title and possession of all that portion of said lot lying north of the center of said old Alvarado road, and an easement and right of way over all that portion lying south of the center of said old road to the north line of Henderson street, as now located. That defendants be enjoined from appropriating or using any part of same for private purposes, or obstructing or preventing plaintiff from the use and enjoyment of same, and that they be required to remove the lumber, lumber sheds, etc., now on the ground, and for general relief.
A jury waived, and judgment for appellee. The conclusions of law and fact found by the judge below are sufficiently apparent from the opinion.
Bledsoe & Fisher, for appellant.
Poindexter & Paddleford, for appellee.
We do not deem it necessary to discuss the questions raised by the assignments of error, for the reason that all or nearly all of them have been settled by decisions which have been made since the date of the trial below.
The presiding judge found among his conclusions of law that the plaintiff was entitled to use the ground which was formerly the Alvarado road for the purposes to which it was originally dedicated. He also held that the defendants, in taking possession of it, committed a trespass.
But the court denied relief to the plaintiff upon the supposition that the district court had no power to grant the injunction.
The judge reached that conclusion by reasoning thus: The district court has jurisdiction to try titles to land and to enforce liens thereon. It may issue the writ of injunction when that writ is necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. This is not properly a suit to try title to land or to enforce a lien upon land. It is not, therefore, a suit in which the district court may issue the writ of injunction.
If this conclusion were correct, a large and important class of rights might be entirely without remedy; for the court of appeals has held that the county court has no jurisdiction in such cases. Scripture v. Kent, White & Willson's Cond. Rep., pp. 592-6.
But the jurisdiction of the district court is not thus limited. Const., art. 5, sec. 8.
A general authority is there given to the district courts and to the judges thereof to issue the writs of mandamus, injunction and certiorari, and a further power is superadded to issue all writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction.
This was fully settled, as to the writ of injunction, by the case of Anderson County v. Kennedy, 58...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dallas v. Wright
...power to issue them under established rules of equity. Anderson County v. Kennedy, 58 Tex. 616; Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205; Day Co. v. Chambers, 62 Tex. 190; Stein v. Frieberg, 64 Tex. 271. It is elementary that the statute (article 1219) prescribing a statutory method of reviewing asse......
-
City of Webster v. City of Houston
...Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed, 121 Tex 427, 50 S.W.2d 1080 (1932), cert. denied, 288 U.S. 603, 53 S.Ct. 387, 77 L.Ed. 978 (1933); Day v. Chambers, 62 Tex. 190 (1884). This presumption applies to conveyances by the state or any governmental subdivision. Joslin v. State, 146 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Tex.......
-
Albert v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...by his deed be estopped from denying the right of his grantee to close the highway. Wooldridge v. Eastland Co., 70 Tex. 680;1 Day v. Chambers, 62 Tex. 190; Mitchell v. Bass, 26 Tex. 372. But in such cases, if, in addition to his deed, the grantor knows that the purchaser is acquiring the la......
-
Wooldridge v. Eastland County
...the plaintiff, purchasing subsequent to such appropriation, would take the land subject to the easement existing at his purchase. Day v. Chambers, 62 Tex. 190. The subsequent public use for a less period of time than would give a right by prescription would not appropriate the way used beyo......