Municipal Inv. Corp. v. Triplett
| Decision Date | 17 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7277,7277 |
| Citation | 371 S.W.2d 124 |
| Parties | MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Smiley TRIPLETT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Bass & Hobbs, Lubbock, for appellant.
Simpson, Adkins, Fullingim & Hankins, Amarillo, for appellees.
This suit was brought by Municipal Investment Corporation against Smiley Triplett and Jay Triplett d/b/a Triplett Cattle Company, a partnership. The suit is for the amount of principal, interest and attorney's fees alleged to be due upon a certain paving certificate issued by the City of Bovina, and for the foreclosure of an alleged statutory lien against certain described property belonging to the Tripletts. Trial was to the court without a jury, and the court entered judgment denying the relief sought by the plaintiff below.
The sole question to be determined is whether or not the Triplett property is abutting property with respect to the paving improvements under the terms of Article 1105b, Section 6, Vernon's Ann.Tex.St. This statute gives cities authority to assess certain paving costs only against abutting property and the owners of such property. No question has been raised relative to the validity of the proceeding under which the City of Bovina issued the paving assessment certificate involved here, nor is it disputed the Tripletts owned the land in question.
The Triplett land abuts East Street along the property's west boundary line and abuts 'Old State Highway 33' on the property's north boundary line. In other words, the south line of the old highway constitutes the north property line of the Triplett property. The old highway was completed in 1924 and was maintained by the State until 1939 after which it was maintained by parmer County until 'North Street' was completed in 1958. 'North Street' is the paving improvement for which the assessment is being sought in this case and is a part of the U. S. Highway 60 Loop running through the City of Bovina. This new highway right-of-way extends over into the north edge of the right-of-way of the old highway by a few feet. A strip of land which varies in width from approximately 30 feet to 80 feet and 420 feet long separates the Triplett property from the new highway which is designated in this area as 'North Street'. This strip of land is a portion of the original right-of-way of 'Old State Highway 33'. The new highway, in effect, was rerouted so that it now lies north of the former highway, and the strip of land above described lies between the new highway and the Triplett property. Concrete curb and gutter have been laid along the south line of the new highway except for a 'lay-down curb' in two places which was described as a 'break in the curb' in the vicinity of the Triplett property. These 'lay-down curbs' can be used to drive vehicles over to proceed to the Triplett property from the new highway. Except for the above-described concrete curb and gutter there are no other barriers dividing the Triplett property and the paving improvements.
The term 'abutting property' is generally held to mean...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Delany
...landowner's property from the road's surface.13 But the facts of this case are distinguishable from those presented in Fuller, Thomas, and Triplett. The record reflects, and the State even contends, appellees' property abutted the public right-of-way adjoining the Connector Road. Courts in ......
-
State v. Harrell Ranch, Ltd.
... ... City of Austin v. Avenue Corp., 704 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Tex.1986). But see AVM-HOU, Ltd. v. Capital Metro ... abutting on the highway and had no right of access thereto); Municipal ... 268 S.W.3d 254 ... Inv. Corp. v. Triplett, 371 S.W.2d 124, 126 ... ...
-
City of Wichita Falls v. Thomas
... ... In the case of Municipal Investment Corporation v. Triplett, 371 S .W.2d 124 (Amarillo, ... ...
-
City of Abilene v. Haynes
...necessary that the paved portion of the roadway extend to the landowners' property lines. Municipal Investment Corporation v. Triplett, 371 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cited by landowners, is distinguishable. In that case, the strip of "vacant" land, varying......