Ray v. State, 8992.
Citation | 153 S.W.2d 660 |
Decision Date | 09 July 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 8992.,8992. |
Parties | RAY v. STATE. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court. Travis County; Ralph W. Yarbrough, Judge.
Action by the State of Texas against Worth S. Ray, to cancel an award and sale to the defendant of certain realty as unsurveyed school lands and to remove cloud from the title to the land by reason of such award and sale. From a judgment in favor of the state, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
J. F. Hair, Amos Felts, Wheeler & Wheeler, and Cofer & Cofer, all of Austin, for appellant.
Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Kepke, James Noel, and George W. Barcus, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Appellee, State of Texas, sued appellant, Worth S. Ray, to cancel an award and sale to him by the Land Commissioner of 183.47 acres of land in Dallas County as unsurveyed school land, and to remove cloud from the title to the land by reason of such award and sale. The trial to the court without a jury resulted in judgment for the State as prayed; hence this appeal.
Prior to 1931 the land involved was a part of the bed of the Trinity River, a navigable stream in fact and in law. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. v. Tarrant County Water Control Dist., 123 Tex. 432, 73 S.W.2d 55. On August 2, 1930, a part of the water of the river was diverted to a new channel on authority given by the State to the City and County of Dallas Levee Improvement District, and sometime in 1931 about 32 acres of the land were filled in by artificial means to the approximate level of the surrounding terrain. Appellant asserted that the award and sale were valid as to the 32 acres, upon the theory that when the natural bed of the Trinity River was diverted by the new artificial channel, the old river bed was no longer a part of the navigable river bed, and the abandoned channel became a part of the unappropriated public domain, and under the Settlement Act as originally passed and re-enacted belonged to the Permanent School Fund, and was unsurveyed school land within the meaning of Art. 5323, R.C.S.1925, and Art. 5421c (Acts 1931, Chap. 271, p. 452) Vernon's Ann. Statutes, and was subject to sale under each Act, or in any event the 32 acres were a part of the public domain and as such were subject to sale under the latter Act. No claim is here made as to the remaining 151 acres, but it is urged that if the judgment is reversed as to the 32 acres, then the judgment as to the 151 acres should be reversed so as to fully develop its status.
In denying the claims of the appellant, the trial court found and concluded as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peterson v. Morton
...v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (Fla.), 178 So.2d 900; State v. Aucoin, 206 La. 786, 20 So.2d 136; Ray v. State (Tex.Civ. App.) 153 S.W.2d 660; Wilemon v. City and County of Dallas Levee Imp. Dist. (Tex.Civ.App.), 264 S.W.2d 543 (cert. den. 348 U.S. 829, 75 S.Ct. 53, ......
-
Brainard v. State, 98-0578
...of the navigable stream by a dam does not alter the ownership of the former river bed, as the bed existed before the alteration. Ray vs. State, 153 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. Civ. App. 1941, error ref. w.o.m.); City and County of Dallas [Levee Improvement] District vs. Carroll, 263 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. C......
-
Butler v. Sadler, 86
...F.2d 191; State v. Arnim, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 503; Heard v. Town of Refugio, 129 Tex. 349, 103 S.W.2d 728, (1937); Ray v. State, 153 S.W.2d 660, at 662 and 663, Tex.Civ.App., ref. w. o. m.; Short v. W. T. Carter & Brother, 133 Tex. 202, 126 S.W.2d 953 (1938); State v. Bradford, 121 Tex......
-
State v. Bonelli Cattle Co.
...v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (Fla.), 178 So.2d 900; State v. Aucoin, 206 La. 786, 20 So.2d 136; Ray v. State (Tex.Civ.App.), 153 S.W.2d 660; Wilemon v. City and County of Dallas Levee Imp. Dist. (Tex.Civ.App.), 264 S.W.2d 543 (cert. den. 348 U.S. 829, 75 S.Ct. 53, ......