Hall v. City of Austin
| Decision Date | 28 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. B--1849,B--1849 |
| Parties | Maurice D. HALL, Petitioner, v. CITY OF AUSTIN, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
E. Wayne Thode, Salt Lake City, Utah, Byrd, Davis, Eisenberg & Clark, Tom H. Davis, Austin, for petitioner.
H. Glenn Cortez, City Atty., Austin, Sears & Burns, Robert L. Burns, Houston, for respondent.
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
This is an eminent domain proceeding. We order the appeal dismissed, because no appealable judgment has been rendered by the trial court.
In its petition filed April 30, 1953, the City of Austin sought to condemn a lot 100 feet deep fronting 250 feet on the south side of Waterfront Street for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a freeway, now designated as Interstate Highway 35, and streets intersecting therewith. Special commissioners were appointed and made their award, and the landowner filed objections asserting that the amount of the award was inadequate. On October 5, 1966, after the freeway was constructed, the landowner filed amended objections alleging that approximately the eastern one-half of the lot had been used for the purposes stated in the petition and that the attempted condemnation of the remainder of the lot was 'arbitrary, capricious, in bad faith, and an abuse of the power of condemnation.' It was also alleged that the City had waived its right, and is now estopped, to take the unused portion of the lot and that the award of the commissioners is grossly inadequate.
On April 27, 1967, the landowner filed a motion, quoted in the margin, 1 for a separate trial of issues pursuant to Rule 174. Appended to the motion is the following order signed by the trial judge:
'It is hereby Ordered that a separate trial be held on the issues of whether or not the City had the right to condemn that portion of the tract involved which has not been used for the Interregional Highway or whether the exercise of the City's right to condemn was excessive and arbitrary.'
On November 5, 1968, judgment was rendered that the City take nothing as to the western portion of the lot, which portion was described by metes and bounds in the judgment. No disposition was made of the claims of the parties with respect to the portion of the lot occupied by Interstate Highway 35. The City attempted to appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals but pointed out in its brief that this was done out of an abundance of caution since the trial court's judgment was probably interlocutory. The Court of Civil Appeals entertained the appeal, evidently on the basis of its conclusion that an order for the separate trial of issues has the same effect as an order of severance. The judgment of the county court at law was, in effect, reversed and the cause was remanded for a trial on the issue of damages. 446 S.W.2d 330.
The difference between a severance and an order for separate trials has been explained several times. See Kansas University Endowment Ass'n v. King, 162 Tex. 599, 350 S.W.2d 11; Hall, Severance and Separate Trial in Texas, 36 Tex.L.Rev. 339. A severance divides the lawsuit into two or more separate and independent causes. When this has been done, a judgment which disposes of all parties and issues in one of the severed causes is final and appealable. An order for a separate trial leaves the lawsuit intact but enables the court to hear and determine one or more issues without trying all controverted issues at the same hearing. The order entered at the conclusion of a separate trial is often interlocutory, because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ghidoni v. Stone Oak, Inc.
...independent causes, each of which can lead to a separate judgment which is final, enforceable and appealable, Hall v. City of Austin, 450 S.W.2d 836, 837-38 (Tex.1970). The relief sought by a motion to strike intervention and a motion for severance, separate trials and abatements are clearl......
-
Gil Ramirez Grp., LLC v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist.
... ... City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Even so, "[m]otions to dismiss ... and insureds, principal and agent, joint venturers and partners-will the duty apply." Hall v. Resolution Trust Corp., 958 F.2d 75, 79 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citations ... Dillard v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 806 S.W.2d 589, 594 (Tex. App.Austin 1991, writ denied) (citing Braun v ... ...
-
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.
...1972, no writ); City of Austin v. Hall, 446 S.W.2d 330, 336 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1969), rev'd on other grounds, 450 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.1970); Lohmann v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 434 S.W.2d 879, 882 (Tex.Civ. App.-Beaumont 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Aronoff v. City of Dallas, 316 S.W.2d ......
-
Grocers Supply, Inc. v. Cabello
...the court to hear and determine one or more issues without trying all controverted issues at the same hearing. Hall v. City of Austin, 450 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Tex.1970). An issue that is tried separately under rule 174 need not constitute a complete lawsuit in itself. Kan. Univ. Endowment Ass'......