Sinclair v. City of Dallas
| Decision Date | 19 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 1112.,1112. |
| Citation | 44 S.W.2d 465 |
| Parties | SINCLAIR et al. v. CITY OF DALLAS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from County Court at Law, No. 2, Dallas County; Jno. A. Rawlins, Judge.
Condemnation proceedings by the City of Dallas against J. B. Sinclair and others. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
P. P. Ballowe, of Dallas, for appellants.
J. J. Collins, A. A. Long, W. Hughes Knight. H. P. Kucera, and A. J. Thuss, all of Dallas, for appellee.
This is a condemnation proceeding, and the sole question to be determined is whether the appellants, as the owners of the property sought to be condemned, filed their objections to the decision of the commissioners appointed to appraise the damages within the statutory time so as to authorize a trial in the county court.
The city of Dallas, desiring to condemn, for the purpose of widening a street, a part of the property owned by James B. Sinclair and wife, Mattie Lula Sinclair, and on which S. H. Broadnax held a lien, filed proper petition with the judge of the county court at law No. 2 of Dallas county. The judge filed the petition, and properly appointed commissioners to assess the damages. The commissioners gave the required notice, and, after a hearing, made their decision in writing and filed same, together with all other papers in connection therewith, with said judge on August 18, 1930. The decision of the commissioners after being so filed, together with all other papers, was immediately delivered to the county clerk, but he did not file same nor docket the case until August 28, 1930. Sinclair and wife and Broadnax filed their objections to the decision of the commissioners on September 6, 1930. Thereafter citation was issued, and the case came on for trial. Upon a trial of the case in the county court, the court sustained a motion filed by the city, and struck out the objections so filed by the property owners, and dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction. Sinclair and wife and Broadnax appeal.
Revised Statutes, article 3265, subd. 5, provides that the commissioners in condemnation proceedings shall make their decision in writing, and shall file the same, with all other papers in connection therewith, promptly with the county judge. Revised Statutes, art. 3266, provides in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose v. State
...is not a judgment in a civil suit, because the proceedings did not reach the stage of 'a case in court.' Sinclair v. City of Dallas, 44 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex.Civ.App.1931, writ ref'd). In State v. Nelson, 160 Tex. 515, 334 S.W.2d 788 (1960), we recognized this difference, holding that once a......
-
Iroha v. Son, No. 2-05-391-CV (Tex. App. 1/25/2007)
...thus, did not constitute a case pending in the county court at law. See Pearson, 315 S.W.2d at 938; Sinclair v. City of Dallas, 44 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1931, writ ref'd). Because the alleged agreement between the Sons and the Irohas did not touch upon a "suit pending," rule ......
-
Pearson v. State
...are filed or until the time for filing same has expired and the judge is required to enter judgment on the award.' Sinclair v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 465, 466 (wr. ref.). A condemnation proceeding is not within the general jurisdiction of the county court as defined by Art.......
-
Lemmon v. Giles
...202; State v. Carpenter, Tex.Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d 219, 223, reversed on other grounds, 126 Tex. 604, 89 S.W.2d 194; Sinclair v. City of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 465; 16 Tex.Jur. The City of Dallas relies on the case of State v. Carpenter, supra. However that case seems to us to suppor......