Lindner v. Hill
| Decision Date | 05 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3218,C-3218 |
| Citation | 691 S.W.2d 590 |
| Parties | Harvey LINDNER, et ux, Petitioners, v. Frank Y. HILL, Jr., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Chilton Maverick, San Antonio, Small, Craig and Werkenthin, Charles Herring, Jr. and Dennis R. Reese, Austin, for petitioners.
This cause concerns the implied dedication of a road to public use. In 1982, Harvey Lindner and his wife brought this action against the Kendall County Attorney (Frank Y. Hill, Jr.) and others seeking a declaratory judgment that the road in question is private. The trial court, sitting without a jury, held that the road had been impliedly dedicated to public use. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 673 S.W.2d 611. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
In 1889, Herman Lindner, Harvey Lindner's grandfather and predecessor in title, built a public school on his property. To permit access to the school, he constructed Lindner Road and threw it open to public use. From that time until 1982, the Lindner family allowed the public to use Lindner Road at will. Also, evidence exists that Kendall County was maintaining Lindner Road during Herman Lindner's lifetime. Based in part on these facts, the trial court filed a conclusion of law that "the road is impliedly dedicated to public use," and the court of appeals found that "Herman Lindner, Harvey's grandfather and predecessor in title, dedicated Lindner Road." 673 S.W.2d at 616.
Before this court, Harvey Lindner complains that no evidence exists in the record to support the holding of an implied dedication. We disagree. Since the determination of whether a public right-of-way has been acquired by dedication is a question of fact, Malone v. Whitfield, 621 S.W.2d 192, 195 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the lower courts' finding of an implied dedication must be upheld if any evidence of probative force exists in the record to support it. We must consider only the evidence and inferences tending to support the trial court's finding of an implied dedication, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1965).
As recently articulated by this court, the essential elements of implied dedication are:
(1) the acts of the landowner induced the belief that the landowner intended to dedicate the road to public use; (2) [the landowner] was competent to do so; (3) the public relied on these acts and will be served by the dedication; and (4) there was an offer and acceptance of the dedication.
Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co. v. Zavala County, 682 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex.1984). While the trial court did not specifically address all these elements in its findings of fact, any omitted findings will be deemed to support the judgment if evidence exists to support such findings. Tex.R.Civ.P. 299. We conclude that evidence of probative force exists on each of the elements of implied dedication.
First, the evidence that Herman Lindner threw open Lindner Road to public use and permitted Kendall County to maintain it supports the element that his acts induced the belief that he intended to dedicate the road to public use. See Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co. v. Zavala County, 682 S.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc.
...868.65 Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement Dist. Number One v. Haupt, Inc., 854 S.W.2d 909, 913 (Tex.1993); Lindner v. Hill, 691 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex.1985).66 Tucci, 859 S.W.2d at 6 (Doggett, J., plurality opinion).67 937 S.W.2d at 80.68 937 S.W.2d at 81.69 See Boos v. Barry, 485 U......
-
Cox v. Thee Evergreen Church, D-0938
...by legislative enactment, the common law controls. See Lindner v. Hill, 673 S.W.2d 611, 616 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984), aff'd, 691 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.1985). In appropriate limited circumstances, this court has recognized the need to modify the common law. See Sanchez v. Schindler, 651 S.W.2d......
-
In re S.K.A.
...presumed findings on omitted elements, for legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. See J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 276; Lindner v. Hill, 691 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. 1985); see also Ortiz v. Jones, 917 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.1996). There is a "strong presumption that the best interest of the chi......
-
Cowan v. Worrell
...the landowner's acts and will be served by the dedication; and (4) there is an offer and acceptance of the dedication. Lindner v. Hill , 691 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. 1985) (citing Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co. v. Zavala Cty. , 682 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex. 1984) ); Betts v. Reed , 165 S.W.3d 862, 8......