Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Culver
| Decision Date | 23 October 1889 |
| Citation | 14 S.W. 1013 |
| Parties | FT. WORTH & R. G. RY. Co. v. CULVER. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Tarrant county; W. D. HARRIS, Judge.
N. A. Stedman, for appellant. Ball, Wynne & McCart, for appellee.
This is a proceeding by appellant under the statute to condemn right of way for a railroad over appellee's land. Appellee filed objections to the award of the commissioners, and the cause was tried in the county court. On the trial in the county court appellee claimed, and was awarded, the right to open and conclude the argument. Appellant excepted, and assigns this matter as error. This court has held that, in a proceeding to condemn land, the party seeking the condemnation, and not the owner of the land, is the party upon whom the burden of proof rests, and is the party entitled to open and conclude the argument, unless such right be defeated by an admission made and entered of record, in accordance with rule 31 for district courts. 3 Civil Cas. Ct. App. §§ 409, 415. No such admission was entered of record by appellee in this case. Upon this question, in addition to authorities cited in the cases decided by this court, above referred to, we here cite 9 Crim. Law Mag. p. 620, § 4, and the decisions collated in note. Except the ruling above mentioned, we have been unable to perceive any error in the proceedings and judgment, but because of such erroneous ruling the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
HURT, J., absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arcola Sugar Mills Co. v. Houston Lighting & P. Co.
...C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ross, 4 Willson Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 87, 16 S.W. 536; Ft. Worth & R. G. R. Co. v. Culver, 4 Willson Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 5, 14 S.W. 1013; Ft. Worth & D. N. R. Co. v. Johnson, Tex.Com.App., 84 S.W.2d 232; 16 Tex.Jur. 577; Leathers v. Craig, Tex.Civ. App., 228 S.W. 995; Dallas ......
-
Seattle & M. Ry. Co. v. Murphine
...v. Railway Co., 106 Ill. 152; South Park Commissioners v. Trustees, 107 Ill. 489; Neff v. Cincinnati, 32 Ohio St. 215; Railway Co. v. Culver, (Tex. App.) 14 S.W. 1013; Alloway v. City of Nashville, (Tenn.) 13 S.W. Railroad Co. v. Sayre, 72 Ala. 443; Harrison v. Young, 9 Ga. 359. But it is c......
-
Fort Worth & D. N. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 1881-6405.
...uniformly held that the burden of proof in a proceeding of this kind is on the whole case upon the plaintiff. Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Culver (Tex. App.) 14 S. W. 1013; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ross (Tex. App.) 16 S. W. 536; City of San Antonio v. Fike (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. 639;......