Int'l & Great N. R. R. v. Dawson

• Decision Date: 21 October 1884
• Docket Number: Case No. 1727.
• Citation: 62 Tex. 260
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL & GREAT NORTH. R. R. v. SALLIE DAWSON ET AL.

62 Tex. 260

INTERNATIONAL & GREAT NORTH. R. R.

v.SALLIE DAWSON ET AL.

Case No. 1727.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1884.

APPEAL from Smith. Tried below before the Hon. Felix J. McCord.

The substance of this cause of action, as gathered from the pleading, is that plaintiff Sallie Dawson, joined by her husband, conveyed to defendant, the I. & G. N. R. R. Co., twelve acres of ground; that, at the time of making this conveyance, a parol agreement was made between them, which was the consideration for the deed, that defendant should permanently locate its depots in the southern part of the city of Tyler; that they were accordingly so located, but afterwards removed, wherefore plaintiffs sue for the value of the twelve acres of land conveyed.

To plaintiffs' cause of action defendant interposed general demurrer, special exceptions, general denial and a plea of two years' limitation. Upon the trial judgment was rendered for plaintiffs for $800, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

Whittaker & Bonner, for appellant.

Thos. W. Dodd, for appellees.

WEST, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

There was no error committed by the court, in its rulings on the testimony, referred to in the appellant's bills of exceptions. The evidence was clearly admissible.

As to the main question in the case, the present weight of authority is to the effect that a railroad corporation can, by contract, bind itself to perpetually maintain a permanent depot at a particular place.

This point was considered, and so decided by this court, in the recent case of Tex. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Robards et al., 60 Tex., 545, 546.

Some of the cases bearing on the point are there collected.

The following authorities on the subject may also be consulted: Morawetz on Priv. Corp., sec. 209, and cases there cited; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 103 and 108, and pp. 42, 65, 384; also Potter on Corp., 2 vol., sec. 506 et seq.

Under the circumstances of this case, as set forth in the amended pleadings of the appellees, we are not prepared to say that the district court was in error, under the present state of the authorities, in holding that the action could be maintained under the special facts of this case as disclosed by the pleadings as amended. We are not prepared, however, to extend the rule, on this subject, as there laid down.

Whilst it is true that parol evidence may, in a certain limited class of cases, be resorted to for the purpose of proving the existence of an oral agreement, precedent to...