Jones v. City of Mineola
| Decision Date | 26 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 6289.,6289. |
| Citation | 203 S.W.2d 1020 |
| Parties | JONES et ux. v. CITY OF MINEOLA. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Wood County Court; C. C. Bellomy, Judge.
Condemnation proceeding by the City of Mineola against W. N. Jones and wife to acquire a strip of land for highway purposes. From the judgment, W. N. Jones and wife appeal.
Affirmed.
Jones & Jones, of Mineola, and C. W. Vickery, of Quitman, for appellants.
G. D. Minick, of Mineola, and W. H. Barnes, of Terrell, for appellee.
The City of Mineola, Texas, filed proceedings for the purpose of condemning for highway purposes a strip of land about 31 feet wide north and south by 50 feet long east and west, and being the front part of premises upon which the home of appellants is situated. Commissioners were appointed by the county judge of Wood County to assess the damages for the land to be appropriated and from an award of $1500 made by them the city appealed and upon trial before a jury in the county court of Wood County the damages were assessed at the sum of $500. From this latter award W. N. Jones and wife have prosecuted this appeal.
The principal contention made by appellants in the various points assigned by them is that a condemnation of private property for public use in excess of that which is necessary is not permissible. In this case it seems that a total width of 31 feet was condemned, 21 feet of the strip being used for the purpose of widening the highway and the remaining 10 feet used for a parkway and sidewalk. Appellants' contention is that since no part of the 10 foot strip is to be used as a part of the highway or street its condemnation is illegal and void and constitutes the taking of their property without due process of law. The city commission of Mineola, Texas, at a regular meeting of April 9, 1946, decided and by written resolution stated that it was necessary to widen West Broad Street to a minimum width of 80 feet, which proposed widening included the area condemned in front of the property of appellants. The city filed its petition with the county judge of Wood County alleging the necessity for the condemnation of such property, which contained a description of the property to be condemned, together with other allegations necessary under the statute. Art. 1109b, R.C.S. of Texas, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1109b, confers upon cities of a certain type the power to condemn property for public use, such as for city and highway purposes, and prescribes the procedure to be followed in such cases. When the governing body of such a city has decided that it is necessary to condemn property for the purposes provided in the statute, such condemnation is conclusive unless it be shown that its action was arbitrary or fraudulent. In the absence of such a pleading and proof in support thereof courts are without authority to review the action of the governmental unit in determining the necessity for such condemnation. Many authorities and precedents to this effect can be cited. Massie v. City of Floydada, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 243; Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Malone, Tex. Civ.App., 190 S.W. 809; Tarrant County v. Shannon, 129 Tex. 264, 104 S.W.2d 4; 29 C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 89, p. 882. The latter authority states the principle of law as follows:
"Generally, a determination by the grantee of the power is conclusive and is not subject to judicial review, in the absence of fraud, bad faith, or clear abuse of discretion."
When the city commission of Mineola passed upon the matter of the necessity for the widening of the highway their action in that respect was conclusive, absent a showing that they had abused their discretion and had acted fraudulently or capriciously. Appellants in their pleadings filed with the special commissioners upon the trial of the case alleged fraud and an abuse of discretion upon the part of the commissioners and the burden of proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.
...La Feria Mut. Canal Co., 62 Tex.Civ.App. 24, 130 S.W. 916, 918 (1910, writ ref'd). 37. See, e.g., Jones v. City of Mineola, 203 S.W.2d 1020, 1023 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1947, writ ref'd); Brown v. Lower Colo. River Auth., 485 S.W.2d 369, 371 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1972, no writ); City of Aus......
-
City of Austin v. Hall
...settlement there might have been by making appearance before the commissioners in resistance of condemnation on the merits. Jones v. City of Mineola, 203 S.W.2d 1020, Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, writ ref. (1947); Aronoff v. City of Dallas, 316 S.W.2d 302, Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, writ ref . n.......
-
Kerr v. Raney
...26 Ill.2d 167, 186 N.E.2d 275; Delfeld v. City of Tulsa (1942), 191 Okl. 541, 131 P.2d 754, 143 A.L.R. 1032; Jones v. City of Mineola (Tex. Civ.App.1947), 203 S.W.2d 1020; Dillon v. Davis (1960), 201 Va. 514, 112 S.E.2d 137. It also seems clear that the requisite impossibility of agreement ......
-
Aronoff v. City of Dallas, 7055
...the Special Commissioners in Condemnation and in the trial in the County Court at Law of Dallas County, Texas. In Jones v. City of Mineola, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 1020, 1023, wr.ref., it is 'In addition it has been held in a number of cases that where the owner of the land sought to be co......
-
CHAPTER 12 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PIPELINE CONDEMNATION LAW
...to the statutory requirements by arguing the merits of the case at the commissioners' hearing); see alsoJones v. City of Mineola, 203 S.W.2d 1020, 1023 (Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana 1947, writ ref'd) (holding that landowner waived argument that condemnor failed to give proper notice when lando......