Lone Star Gas Co. v. Childress
Decision Date | 17 May 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 2638.,2638. |
Parties | LONE STAR GAS CO. v. CHILDRESS et ux. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; Floyd Jones, Judge.
Action by D. L. Childress and wife against Lone Star Gas Company for damages alleged to have been done by defendant when it removed one of its pipe lines from plaintiff's land, and to enjoin defendant from using any portion of their land not included in right of way deed. The trial court awarded plaintiffs $500 damages and granted the injunction, and defendant appeals.
Judgment granting injunction reversed, and judgment awarding damages affirmed.
Conner & Conner, of Eastland, and Marshall Newcomb, Warren J. Collins, and J. L. Toone, all of Dallas, for appellant.
Turner & Seaberry, of Eastland, for appellee.
The plaintiffs brought this suit against the defendant to recover certain items of damage alleged to have been done by defendant when it removed one of its pipe lines from their land and to enjoin defendant from using any portion of their land "not included in defendant's right-of-way and from using any gate or gates owned by the plaintiffs and not located upon the right-of-way, and from using any portion of said premises for any purpose not contemplated by the right-of-way deed or deeds." A jury failed to reach a verdict and a mistrial resulted. The parties then agreed to submit the case to the trial court upon the record made during the jury trial.
The court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and found in the judgment substantially (1) that plaintiffs should recover from defendant the sum of $500 for damages; and (2) that "a strip of land thirty feet wide for each right-of-way grant will be sufficient and reasonable for all use by the defendant under its easements, that plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law in the premises, and that the writ of injunction prayed for by plaintiffs should issue as herein decreed." The court awarded the $500 to plaintiffs, with interest and costs, and permanently enjoined defendant from using under its right-of-way grants (and specifically referred to instruments evidencing such grants and the recording thereof) "a strip of land in excess of thirty feet in width constituting each right-of-way in all of its operations thereon; said defendant, its agents and employees, are further permanently enjoined from using any gate or gates owned by the plaintiffs and not located upon defendant's aforesaid rights-of-way." No request was made for findings of fact and conclusions of law and none was filed.
Points 1 to 5 inclusive assail the judgment substantially to the effect that the court erred in finding that a strip of land thirty feet wide for each right-of-way granted will be sufficient for all use by the defendant under its easements; that plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law in the premises, and that the writ of injunction should issue; and in permanently enjoining defendant from using a strip of land in excess of thirty feet in width; and in permanently enjoining defendant from using fence gates located on the lands covered by defendant's right-of-way deeds but not located upon such thirty foot strip; that such decree in effect reforms the right-of-way deeds and that the pleadings do not warrant or support the reformation. We sustain these contentions.
The defendant, by right-of-way deeds, duly recorded, acquired the right to construct, maintain and operate pipe lines as well as telegraph and telephone lines in connection therewith and to build future pipe and telegraph and telephone lines over and through the land in question prior to the time of the purchase of any part of the lands by the plaintiffs. Defendant constructed two pipe lines, one 10 inches and the other twelve inches in diameter, and telephone wires over said property prior to the time plaintiffs acquired the same. The provisions of said right-of-way deeds are identical except as to grantors, consideration and description of the land covered. We quote the pertinent parts of one of the deeds:
In November 1942, defendant began the removal of the twelve inch pipe line. Plaintiffs were living on the ranch from which the pipe line was removed and they had actual notice of the work being done. Mr. Childress testified, in part, as follows:
And he further testified in part:
After the removal of the pipe line had been completed plaintiffs made a claim for damages to their land, fences and grass and for other items. The Gas Company refused to pay the damages claimed by plaintiffs and this suit was filed.
Plaintiffs, in their pleadings, among other things, alleged: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Traywick v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
...Co., Tex.Civ.App., 250 S.W.2d 237; Tennessee Gas Transmission Company v. Bayles, D.C.La., 74 F.Supp. 258; Lone Star Gas Co. v. Childress, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 936; Babler v. Shell Pipe Line Corporation, D.C.Mo., 34 F.Supp. * * * * * * 'It is next maintained the agreement in controversy ......
-
Griffeth v. Utah Power & Light Company
...and most favorably to the grantee, so as to confer the largest estate which a fair interpretation will permit." Lone Star Gas Co. v. Childress, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 936, 939. McIntire v. Marian Coal Co., 190 Ky. 342, 227 S.W. 298. "All doubts * * * are to be resolved against the grantor......
-
Strauch v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 365
...the rights granted. Crawford v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., Tex.Civ.App., 250 S.W.2d 237, wr. ref.; Lone Star Gas Co. v. Childress, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 936, n.w.h.; Vandiver v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, supra; Sorrell v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, supra. ......
-
Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Lynch
...it did not lose that right by only using a thirty-foot-wide portion of the property in the past. See id. at 596 (citing Lone Star Gas Co. v. Childress , 187 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1945, no pet.) ). However, that statement of law is inapplicable to this case because, in general ease......