Sanders v. City of Beaumont
| Decision Date | 29 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 7261,7261 |
| Citation | 470 S.W.2d 80 |
| Parties | D. F. SANDERS, Appellant, v. The CITY OF BEAUMONT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
W. G. Walley, Jr., Beaumont, for appellant .
Weller, Wheelus, Green & Brocato, Beaumont, for appellees.
In the district court, Sanders sought a writ of mandamus to compel the judge of the county court at law to render an administrative judgment upon an award of special commissioners in an eminent domain proceeding. The district court sustained a plea of the jurisdiction and entered judgment dismissing the cause. The parties will be referred to by name.
The City of Beaumont, for itself and the State of Texas, filed a petition with the county judge of Jefferson County to condemn certain land. Such petition showed as 'owners of said land * * * D. F. Sanders, The State of Texas and County of Jefferson, * * * Beaumont Independent School District, * * * City of Beaumont, * * * Claimants by virtue of taxes which had accrued.' The judge entered an order appointing commissioners, who set a date for a hearing. Sanders waived service and appeared in person and with his attorney for such hearing. The taxing authorities were not cited to appear and did not enter an appearance before the commissioners.
The commissioners made their award in writing July 28, 1965. August 3, 1965, the amount of the award was deposited with the county clerk 'to the order of D. F. Sanders; State of Texas & County of Jefferson, Beaumont Independent School District, The City of Beaumont, Taxing Authorities,' claimants by virtue of taxes which have accrued.
Sanders requested the county clerk to make a check payable to him alone in the full amount of the award, but the check delivered to Sanders was also payable to the State of Texas, Jefferson County, Beaumont Independent School District, and the City of Beaumont, Taxing Authorities. In order to get the required endorsements so the check could be cashed, Sanders paid the estimated amount of taxes for the year 1965 to each of the taxing authorities. August 19, 1965, the State of Texas and the City of Beaumont filed written objections and exceptions to the award by the commissioners with the judge of the county court at law. Thereafter, Sanders filed his motion in the county court at law for judgment upon the award of the commissioners. That motion was heard and denied by the judge of the county court at law and no appeal was taken from that order. Sanders then filed his petition for mandamus in the district court.
There is no disagreement as to the facts in this case. The parties stipulated all of the pertinent matters which gave the county court jurisdiction to hear an eminent domain case, including those set forth above. It was agreed that all taxes for the year 1964 and prior years had been paid but that no taxes had been paid for the year 1965.
Sanders states in his brief that the administrative proceedings involved in this case, up to August 3, 1965 (the date the award was deposited with the county clerk), were without irregularity. Sanders contends at that point that, inasmuch as the taxing authorities were not made parties, such fact deprived the commissioners of jurisdiction to apportion the award between Sanders and such taxing authorities; that the City of Beaumont failed to comply with Art. 3268, § 1, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., in order to secure possession of the property, by failing to deposit the full amount of the money with the county clerk subject to his order only.
The essence of Sanders' contention is that the City of Beaumont, by failing to tender the amount of the award of the commissioners to him unconditionally, and by tendering the award payable jointly to him and to the taxing authorities, followed by the taking of his land 'effectively and conclusively settled' all matters and issues between the parties, before any attempt was made to invoke the judicial power of the county court at law. He contends,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coward v. Gateway Nat. Bank of Beaumont
...attorneys fee is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, and expert opinion of witnesses is not conclusive.' (470 S.W.2d 80) Audiomedia, Inc. v. Rollins Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 477 S.W.2d 370, 375 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1972, error ref. n.r.e.), found the court rev......
-
Rose v. State, 15063
...could never be properly considered in an appeal from the judgment.' 315 S.W.2d at 939. See also Sanders v. City of Beaumont, 470 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Hale v. Lavaca County Flood Control Dist., 344 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1961, no writ); Lemmo......
-
City of Beaumont v. West
...Land Company, 440 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston--14th, 1969, error ref. n.r.e.), and Sanders v. City of Beaumont, 470 S.W.2d 80, 82 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1971, error ref. n.r.e.). The trial court could acquire jurisdiction of the condemnation proceedings only by the filing of th......
-
Jefferson County v. Farris
...proceeding which was docketed in the County Court at Law No. 2, under No. 26,018, Jefferson County vs. A. Vernon Welch, et al. Sanders v. City of Beaumont, 470 S.W.2d 80, 82 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1971, error ref . Thereafter, numerous plaintiffs including the Welch respondents, brought s......