Floyd v. Turner

Decision Date01 January 1859
Citation23 Tex. 292
PartiesF. R. FLOYD v. JOHN TURNER AND OTHERS.
CourtTexas Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

A public road cannot be laid out and established through a farm, and the improvements thereon, without the requirements of the law in such cases having been first complied with (act 4th February, 1852, Pamph. Laws, 36, ch. 34), and an injunction will be granted to restrain the road overseer from opening or working such a road.

Where a bill for an injunction shows a case, which entitles the complainant to relief, although the injunction may be properly dissolved on the defendant's answer to the equity of the bill, it is error to dismiss the bill on motion.

APPEAL from Orange. Tried below before the Hon. James M. Maxcey.

This was a suit by the appellant against the appellees, John Turner, road overseer, Alexander Davis, chief justice of Orange county, Hugh Ochiltree and others, county commissioners, to enjoin and restrain the road overseer from proceeding to open a road, which the plaintiff alleged would pass through his homestead tract of land, to his great damage.

The plaintiff alleged in his petition, that at the November term, 1854, of the county court of Orange county, an order was made, appointing certain commissioners, to review and lay out a road leading from Montes' Ferry, on the Neches river, to the most suitable point on the Beaumont and Madison road, and report to the court at the next term. He averred that the said commissioners never reviewed the proposed road, nor made any report to the court. The petition stated, that no further action had been taken by that court, touching the establishment of such proposed road, until the May term, 1857, when an order was made, “that the road leading from Montes' Ferry, on the Neches river, be laid out on the route and ground as the old road heretofore run, to intersect the road No. 2, leading from Madison to Tevis' Ferry, on the Neches river; and that John Turner be appointed overseer on said road, and that he call out hands” (naming them), “when instructed to work said road from Montes' Ferry to its junction with the said road, No. 2.”

The petition or bill further stated, that at the May term, 1857, of the county court, an order was made, requiring F. R. Floyd (the plaintiff), to be notified and required to remove any obstruction that he may have put in or across road No. 3, known as the Montes' Ferry road; and declaring the same to be a public road.

The plaintiff alleged, that the obstructions referred to in this order, consisted of improvements made by him upon his said premises and land, such as buildings, fencing, etc., of a substantial and permanent character, which had been erected upon the premises for more than five years, during which time they had been in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hull v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1887
    ... ... R. R. v. Menk, supra ... Ray v. R ... R. , 4 Neb. 439. Cameron v. Supervisors , 47 ... Miss. 264. Paris v. Mason , 37 Tex. 447. Floyd v ... Turner , 23 Tex. 292. Pierpoint v. Harrisville , ... 9 W.Va. 215. Or he may bring ejectment. R. R. Co. v ... Smith , 78 Ill. 96. Smith ... ...
  • Hull v. Chi., B. & Q. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1887
    ...Menk, supra; Ray v. Railroad Co., 4 Neb. 439; Cameron v. Supervisors of Washington Co., 47 Miss. 264;Paris v. Mason, 37 Tex. 447;Floyd v. Turner, 23 Tex. 292;Pierpoint v. Harrisville, 9 W. Va. 215;) or he may bring ejectment, ( Railroad Co. v. Smith, 78 Ill. 96;Smith v. Railroad Co., 67 Ill......
  • Lewis v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 6, 1911
    ...330 [2 S. W. 828]; Davidson v. State, 16 Tex. App. 336. To the same effect, see Thompson v. State, 22 Tex. App. 328 [3 S. W. 232]; Floyd v. Turner, 23 Tex. 292; Evans v. Land Co., 81 Tex. 622 [17 S. W. 232]; Railway v. Austin [Civ. App.] 40 S. W. Appellant having been in peaceable and adver......
  • Jones v. Florida, C. & P.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 14, 1889
    ... ... are not only consistent with the general principles of ... equity, but are in frequent use. Stewart v. Railroad Co., ... 7 Smedes & M. 568; Floyd v. Turner, 23 Tex ... 292; Railroad Co. v. Railroad Co., 2 McCrary, 260 ... This appears to be the only course in this case by which the ... ...
  • 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