Evans v. Santana Live-Stock & Land Co.

Decision Date13 October 1891
Citation17 S.W. 232
PartiesEVANS <I>et al.</I> v. SANTANA LIVE-STOCK & LAND CO.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Appeal from district court, Coleman county; J. W. TIMMINS, Judge.

Action by the Santana Live-Stock & Land Company against T. J. Evans and others, to enjoin the opening of a public road. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the answer, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Sims & Snodgrass, for appellants. J. P. Ledbetter, for appellee.

STAYTON, C. J.

This suit was brought by appellee, a corporation, against the members of the county commissioners' court and a road overseer for Coleman county, to enjoin them from opening a public road through lands claimed by the corporation. The commissioners' court, acting under the act of February 7, 1884, (Sayles' Civil St. arts. 4360, 4361,1) of its own motion, more than 90 days after the passage of that law, and in obedience to it, determined to open such a road as that act provides for, and to that end appointed a jury of view to lay out the road, directing them to give to the owners of land the notice prescribed by law before taking action. No notice, however, was given to appellee of the contemplated proceedings, although notice was given to G. W. Mahoney, who was in fact its agent; but this was not such notice as would bind the company, for it did not purport to be notice to it served upon its agent. After such notice was given to Mahoney, the jury of view proceeded to lay out the road, and to assess damages in favor of Mahoney and other persons who appeared and made claim. The report of the jury of view was approved by the court, and the road ordered to be opened, when this action was brought to restrain the opening of the road, but not before the suit was brought was any deposit of money with the county treasurer made to pay the damages awarded to any person over whose land the road was to pass. Mahoney was dissatisfied with the award of damages made in his favor, and gave notice of appeal, but this, it seems, he never prosecuted. After this suit was instituted, and a writ of injunction issued, it is alleged that the county commissioners' court took such steps as were necessary for the condemnation of road-way, of which plaintiff was duly notified, and under those proceedings established the line of road, and made a special deposit of money with the county treasurer, subject to plaintiff's order, to satisfy the damages awarded to it; but the court sustained a demurrer to so much of the answer, and on hearing perpetuated the injunction. There are many questions presented in the brief of counsel for appellants which it will not be necessary to consider, for there are a few leading questions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Doughty v. DeFee, 5201.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 19 mai 1941
    ...their validity had not been determined. This issue has been foreclosed against the appellant by the case of Evans et al. v. Santana Live-Stock & Land Co., 81 Tex. 622, 17 S.W. 232. See also Easter Oil Corporation v. Wilbarger County et al., Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d In his next proposition th......
  • Wilson v. Newton County
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 9 février 1925
    ...service upon the principal the process must be directed to the principal to be executed by service upon the agent (Evans v. Life Stock & Land Co., 81 Tex. 622, 17 S. W. 232), which, in the instant case, was not pretended to have been done, but Wilson was served independently as a party to t......
  • City of Dallas v. Crawford
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 21 avril 1920
    ...be appointed until such service. Sprague v. Haines, 68 Tex. 215, 4 S. W. 371; Evans v. Livestock, etc., 81 Tex. at bottom of page 624, 17 S. W. 232. The Supreme Court has said: "Notice to the owner of the land sought to be condemned is necessary to jurisdiction, and this cannot be presumed ......
  • Bradford v. Moseley
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 6 juin 1920
    ...McIntire v. Lucker, 77 Tex. 259, 13 S. W. 1027; Powell v. Carson County, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 197, 131 S. W. 235; Evans v. Santana, etc., 81 Tex. 622, 17 S. W. 232. Latitude and discretion is allowed commissioners' courts in the matter of opening roads, and, it being their duty to open roads "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT