Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist. v. Cartwright
| Decision Date | 19 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 13388,13388 |
| Citation | 319 S.W.2d 158 |
| Parties | LOWER NUECES RIVER WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Holman CARTWRIGHT et ux., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Schneider & Schneider, George West, Lewright, Dyer & Redford, Fischer, Wood, Burney & Nesbitt, Corpus Christi, Charles C. Triplett, William L. Hardwick, George West, Wood, Pratt & Boykin, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Clemens, Knight, Weiss & Spencer, San Antonio, Harry J. Schulz, Three Rivers, Morrill & Patton, Beeville, William L. Hardwick, George West, for appellees.
This case concerns the respective jurisdictions of the County and District Courts of Live Oak County over condemnation matters as affected by Art. 3269, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats. The district court sustained pleas to the jurisdiction and abatement and dismissed this suit brought by Lower Nueces River Water Supply District for title and condemnation. The controlling points in the case are: (1) Did the district court have jurisdiction over the title issues injected into prior condemnation proceedings commenced in the county court? (2) Did the fact that title was injected into the county court condemnation proceeding oust that court of its jurisdiction over condemnation? (3) Did the district court properly refuse to enjoin further proceedings in the county court condemnation matter?
Lower Nueces River Water Supply District, hereafter called Water District, on November 7, 1957, filed a petition in the County Court of Live Oak County to condemn 3,242.92 acres of land owned by Holman Cartwright and wife, Claire Lucas Cartwright. The lands involved lie between the seventy-five and ninety-four foot contour lines above sea level and will be flooded either continuously or intermittently by waters impounded behind the Wesley Seale Dam. The petition for condemnation filed in the county court on its face satisfied all jurisdictional rules. The County Judge appointed special commissioners who qualified. Cartwrights, the condemnees, answered and the hearing commenced on April 14, 1958. Evidence was heard from April 14 to April 18, during was recessed on April 18, and when it question into the proceedings. The hearing was recessed on April 21 Water District filed a resumed on April 21 Water District filed a pleading which stated that it 'takes a non-suit and dismisses the above proceedings.' Cartwrights, the condemnees, resisted the motions for non-suit and dismissal. At that time the Water District had not rested and no award had been ordered. On April 23 the county court denied Water District's motions and ordered the Commissioners to proceed with the hearing.
This suit was filed in the District Court of Live Oak County on the morning that Water District filed its pleading for a non-suit and dismissal in the county court. The Water District sought to settle the title question which had arisen between it and the Cartwrights and, by virtue of Article 3269, joined a suit for condemnation of the same lands described in the county court proceedings, and asked for an injunction against further proceedings in the county court condemnation matter. On May 8, the district court heard Water District's suit for injunction, as well as the pleas to the jurisdiction and abatement urged by condemnees. It refused to enjoin further proceedings in the county court, sustained condemnees' pleas to the jurisdiction and in abatement and then dismissed this suit.
In dismissing this action, the district court in effect held that the district court had no jurisdiction and that the county court had all jurisdiction, even extending to the title dispute between condemnor and condemnees over the lands in question. There was a title dispute. Water District already owned certain easement rights from Cartwrights, but, in the course of the hearing before the commissioners, Cartwright asserted that those easements would wholly terminate in 1967. Water District claimed that the easement might last forever. This presented a title dispute between the Water District and Cartwrights over their rights under the existing easement. Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Store, 114 Tex. 452, 270 S.W. 1014; Watson v. Wiseheart, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W.2d 350; Carleton v. Dierks, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 834; Posey v. Williamson, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 335; 15-B Tex.Jur., Easements, Sec. 46.
Cartwrights claim that they removed the title issue from the condemnation suit because they filed a disclaimer, but the disclaimer is not as broad as the claim, and title issues still remain. There still exists, even with the disclaimer, a dispute over the rights of Water District as to the duration of the easement on lands between the line described in the disclaimer as 'now' below the seventy-five foot contour level, and the land as actually described by metes and bounds in Water District's easement. The disclaimer is silent about disclaiming as to Water District's right to flood intermittently an additional 2,147.82 acres of land between the seventy-five and eighty-five foot level. There are other disputes. In any event, a disclaimer does not entitle one to a dismissal, but entitles the claimant to a judgment upon the disclaimer.
Only the district court has jurisdiction of the title dispute between condemnor and condemnees. Art. 5, Sec. 8, Tex.Const., Vernon's Ann.St. The county court has no jurisdiction over land titles. Blair v. Archer County, 145 Tex. 102, 195 S.W.2d 348; Winston v. Griffith, Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 745, affirmed 133 Tex. 348, 128 S.W.2d 25; Houston North Shore Ry. co. v. Tyrrell, 128 Tex. 248, 98 S.W.2d 786, 793, 108 A.L.R. 1508; McInnis v. Brown County Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 741. Hence, it follows that the district court erred in dismissing at least the title matter from the only court which had jurisdiction over title. That much of the trial court's order must be reversed and remanded.
The next point is whether the title issue ousted the county court of jurisdiction over the condemnation matter. While only a district court has jurisdiction over title, both a district court and a county court may have jurisdiction over condemnation. Water District does not claim that it owns the lands it seeks to condemn. It concedes that it does not own them. After the title dispute about the duration of the existing easement is determined Water District still must condemn the lands it admits it does not own. This, therefore is not a situation such as would exist if a divorce suit were filed in the county court where there is a total lack of jurisdiction. Nor is it a case where a condemnation suit is filed in which the condemnor seeks to use that proceedings to prove its title against condemnee. Houston North Shore Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, supra; McInnis v. Brown County Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, supra. This is a case where both the county court and district court possess jurisdiction over condemnation, which must be heard in one court or the other, but the county court does not possess as full a jurisdiction as the district court, which alone may determine the title issue. 11-B Tex.Jur., Courts, Secs. 54, 56, 57.
Does Article 3269, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., give the Water District power to dismiss its suit in the county court and commence anew in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merit Management Partners I, L.P. v. Noelke
...a tenancy at will or an estate for years "presents a dispute about the title to land"). Cf. Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist. v. Cartwright, 319 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1958) (duration and extent of easement are title disputes), aff'd as modified, 160 Tex. 239, 328 S.W......
-
Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist. v. Cartwright
...fix the damages occasioned by the taking of the lands or interests therein which had not been theretofore acquired by the District. 319 S.W.2d 158. While agreeing with the Court of Civil Appeals in its factual analysis of the case, we are of the opinion that the 'point of no return' had not......
-
Bishop v. Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P.
...and county courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction in eminent domain cases"); see also Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist. v. Cartwright, 319 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1958), aff'd as modified, 328 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. 1959) ("While only a district court has jurisdiction ......