Kolberg v. Hidalgo County Water Imp. Dist. No. 2
| Decision Date | 01 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 10187.,10187. |
| Citation | 110 S.W.2d 961 |
| Parties | KOLBERG et al. v. HIDALGO COUNTY WATER IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 2. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hidalgo County; Fred E. Bennett, Judge.
Suit by A. O. Kolberg, and others against the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 2. Judgment on an instructed verdict for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
R. M. Bounds, of McAllen, for appellants.
Strickland, Ewers & Wilkens, R. D. Cox, Jr., and Orville I. Cox, all of Mission, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by A. O. Kolberg, Lester Kolberg, and Marvin Kolberg, the latter two suing through their father, A. O. Kolberg, as their next friend, against Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 2, seeking to recover damages to real estate owned by the Kolbergs, and known as lot 13, block 57, Alamo tract in Hidalgo county, claiming the damage to have been caused by seepage from a canal of the defendant district adjacent to the land of the Kolbergs, on the north side thereof.
The trial was to a jury, but at the close of the testimony offered by the plaintiffs below the trial court instructed a verdict in favor of the water district, from which judgment the Kolbergs have appealed.
The question here presented is whether or not the appellants' cause of action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The record shows A. O. Kolberg purchased the land involved in this suit on the 1st day of June, 1926, and the canals owned by the appellee water district were in place at the time he purchased the land. The seepage was apparent and known to Kolberg in 1931. This fact is clearly established by two letters written by Kolberg, one dated April 28, 1931, and the other, June 8, 1931, to the water district, calling their attention to the seepage and the damage to his forty acres of land. It is true that the seepage had not waterlogged the entire forty acres at the time these letters were written, however, the extent of the seepage known to Kolberg at the time he wrote the letter of June 8, 1931, is shown by the following statement "This land has gone seepy and practically the entire 40 acres is affected, the trees turning yellow and dieing." There is other testimony in the record tending to show that at least a large portion of the damage to the forty acres of land caused by the seepage had occurred more than two years prior to February 14, 1936, the date on which the suit was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarrant County Water Control & Improve. Dist. v. Reid
...1 v. Pearce, Tex. Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 183; City of Athens v. Evans, Tex.Com.App., 63 S.W.2d 379; Kolberg et al. v. Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 2, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 961. The disposition of appellant's point of error No. 4 in the affirmative is conclusive of the right......
-
Bayouth v. Lion Oil Co.
...such damages to their land accrued and limitations began to run at the time the injury became apparent. Kolberg v. Hidalgo County Water Improvement District (Tex.Civ.App.) 110 S.W.2d 961. Herndon v. G.C. McBride, Inc. (Tex.Civ.App.) 342 S.W.2d 10. Since the pollution of appellants' fresh wa......
-
Houston Natural Gas Corp. v. Pearce
...183; Beck v. American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Co., Tex.Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d 640, writ ref.; Kolberg v. Hidalgo County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 961. The burden of proving limitation is on the defendant. 28 Tex.Jur., Limitation of Actions, Sec. 203. In the i......
-
City of Abilene v. Downs
...water seepage runs from the time injury becomes apparent or discoverable by due diligence. In the case of Kolberg v. Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 2, 110 S.W.2d 961, Judge Murray of the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals states the rule in such cases as 'When appellants' lan......