Fariss v. PGP Gas Products, Inc., 13168
Decision Date | 15 October 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 13168,13168 |
Parties | Max A. FARISS et ux., Appellants, v. PGP GAS PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
C. W. Pearcy, Austin, for appellants.
Marcus L. Thompson, Edith H. Jones, Michael A. McLaughlin, Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones, Houston, for appellees.
Appellee, PGP Gas Products, Inc., initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire a right-of-way easement across acreage situated in Lee County and owned by appellants, Max A. Fariss and Lanette Fariss, husband and wife. The condemnation was for the purpose of acquiring an easement for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a pipeline for the gathering and transmission of natural gas. The commissioners awarded appellants $6,000.00.
Appellants appealed the commissioners' award to the district court of Lee County. After trial to a jury, the district court entered judgment providing that appellee recover from appellants title to the easement and awarding appellants $4,703.00 of the commissioners' award that appellants had not drawn down. This Court will reverse that judgment.
Appellants attack the judgment by many points of error. Appellants' point four complains, in effect, that there is no evidence that the commissioners took the oath specifically required by Texas Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3264.
Proceedings in eminent domain are special in character and there must be a showing by the condemnor of strict compliance with the statutes authorizing the taking of another's property for public use. City of Houston v. Kunze, 262 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.1954). The Supreme Court has consistently held that nothing is to be presumed in favor of the power of the commissioners to enter their award. Parker v. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry., 84 Tex. 333, 19 S.W. 518 (1892); City of Houston v. Kunze, supra. Strict compliance with art. 3264 must be shown in the record. City of Houston v. Kunze, supra; Maberry v. Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc., 493 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Civ.App.1973, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Horton v. County of Mills, 468 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Civ.App.1971, no writ); Estate of Crim v. State, 371 S.W.2d 574 (Tex.Civ.App.1963, no writ); Vey v. City of Fort Worth, 81 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.Civ.App.1935, writ dism'd); Parks v. City of Waco, 274 S.W. 1006 (Tex.Civ.App.1925, no writ).
The rule of State v. Jackson, 388 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.1965), that by accepting the award of the commissioners the condemnee consents to the taking and may not contend that the taking was unlawful, is not applicable to appellants because they did not draw down the award deposited by appellee after the commissioners' hearing. In fact, appellants vigorously contested appellee's compliance with the procedures necessary to exercise its right to condemn.
This Court has examined the record with care to determine whether appellee proved that the commissioners were administered the oath. Prior to calling its first witness, appellee tendered en masse a number of exhibits. The tender and counsel's response are set out below:
There is no "oath of commissioners," marked or unmarked, in the envelope of exhibits filed with the Statement of Facts in this Court. Examination of the statement of facts shows the court reporter's specific notation that appellee's counsel did not provide the reporter with any instruments for use as Exhibits "4, 6, and 12." Counsel for the parties agreed that the statement of facts "... and one separate envelope of original exhibits being sent up by agreement of parties and order of the Court, constituted a full, true and correct transcript in Question and Answer form of all the testimony and proceedings had, and all documentary evidence introduced during said proceedings." (Emphasis added).
It is, of course, the burden of the party tendering an exhibit into evidence to see that the exhibit is properly identified and marked. After the exhibit has been admitted into evidence, it is likewise that party's responsibility to insure that the exhibit has been delivered into the custody of the court reporter for inclusion in the appellate record. In the case at bar, the statement of facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PGP Gas Products, Inc. v. Fariss
...the cause to the trial court because there is no evidence in the record that the commissioners took the oath required by article 3264. 1 606 S.W.2d 957. The question before us is whether the Farisses waived their right to complain on appeal that there is no evidence in the record as to whet......
-
CIM Mgmt. Grp. v. Burnett
... ... Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex ... 1994); Super Ventures, Inc. v. Chaudhry, 501 S.W.3d ... 121, 126 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2016, no ... inclusion ... in the appellate record. Fariss v. PGP Gas Prod., ... 606 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Tex. App.-Austin 1980), ... ...