Look v. El Paso Union Passenger Depot Co.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 175-3200.) |
| Citation | 228 S.W. 917 |
| Parties | LOOK et al. v. EL PASO UNION PASSENGER DEPOT CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by the El Paso Union Passenger Depot Company against the city of El Paso, George Look, and others. Judgment for defendants was reversed and rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals (201 S. W. 714), and defendants bring error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
J. H. McBroom, John L. Dyer, and Gowan Jones, all of El Paso, for plaintiffs in error.
Turney, Culwell, Holliday & Pollard, of El Paso, for defendant in error.
The following is a condensed statement of the material matters in the statement of facts upon which the case was submitted to the trial court:
The ordinance of the city of El Paso, under which the El Paso Union Passenger Depot Company constructed and has subsequently maintained its depot, contains among others, a provision obligating the city to acquire the north one-half of the west one-half of block 171, according to the map of Campbell's addition to the city of El Paso, Tex., on the condition that the Union Depot Company keep and maintain the land acquired as a public park for the use and benefit of the people of the city of El Paso. The depot company, for itself and the railroads entering the city of El Paso, duly accepted the provisions of the ordinance, including the provision obligating it to keep and maintain the park. The plot of ground designated was acquired by the city by condemnation, and turned over to the depot company for improvement and for making into a public park. It has subsequently been used as a public park and for park purposes, and is still owned by the city. The depot company in improving the ground and making it into a park, made all the necessary fills, built concrete retaining walls on the east and south sides thereof, and for purposes of safety constructed an iron fence along the south side. The company also planted trees and grass, and made other improvements necessary for using the ground for park purposes. All these things were done by the depot company in good faith and at a cost of several thousand dollars. The company, for itself and on behalf of the railroads, complied fully with the requirements of the ordinance.
The Union Depot is situated on the west side of San Francisco street, facing east. San Francisco street runs north and south, and into Davis street, which runs east and west. The depot adjoins Davis street on the north. The park adjoins San Francisco street on the east side, and faces west. The park and the depot are separated by the width of San Francisco street, a distance of about 75 feet. Prior to January, 1917, the city of El Paso sued George Look and D. Storms in trespass to try title to recover a tract of land near the park adjoining the west side of block 171, being a part of what was claimed by the city to be Crosby street. Being desirous of compromising the suit, the city council passed a resolution and ordinance setting forth that it was agreed by the parties that the city would dedicate to street and sidewalk purposes all that portion of the park as then laid out lying west of the east line of Crosby street as shown on the Campbell addition map; that the city would construct a sidewalk upon a portion thereof, construct a curb along the westerly line of the sidewalk, and pave all of that part so dedicated, not covered by said sidewalk. The city was also to dedicate the southerly 14 feet of the park for permanent sidewalk purposes. Look and Storms, under the terms of the settlement, were to convey to the city the land sued for, and build the sidewalk on the southerly 14 feet of the park. In March, 1917, a contract of compromise was entered into by the city of El Paso and Look and Storms, containing the same terms and conditions as were embodied in the resolution.
It was the purpose of defendant Look to build business houses upon the property owned by him adjoining the park on the south. The houses would not, however, be upon any part of the property embraced within the limits of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zachry v. City of San Antonio
...v. Travis County, 85 Tex. 435, 21 S.W. 1029; El Paso Union Passenger Depot Co. v. Look, Tex.Civ.App., 201 S.W. 714(1), affirmed Tex.Com.App., 228 S.W. 917(1); City of Tyler v. Smith County, 151 Tex. 80, 246 S.W.2d 601, 606; City of Dallas v. Gibbs, 1901, 27 Tex.Civ.App., 275, 65 S.W. 81, 83......
-
City of Krum v. Rice
...redress, satisfaction, compensation or relief, as the case may be, and that the same was by the city council refused"), aff'd, 228 S.W. 917 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1921).69 Id. at 717.70 Id.71 See Armentrout v. Tex. Dep't of Water Res., 675 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. App.–Austin 1984, no writ) (statin......
-
City of El Paso v. Parish, 5151
...recognized as valid in El Paso Union Passenger Depot Co. v. Look, Tex.Civ.App., 201 S.W. 714, affirmed, Tex.Com.App., opinion not adopted, 228 S.W. 917, although it was held not applicable to an injunction suit. In Luke v. City of El Paso, Tex.Civ.App., 60 S.W. 363, it was held as a conditi......
-
City of Dallas v. Etheridge
...a park even though the city's purpose in putting them in may have been to connect up the street system. In El Paso Union Passenger Depot Co. v. Look, Tex.Com.App., 228 S.W. 917, 919, the court made it plain that one of the reasons for prohibiting the construction of the sidewalk in that cas......