Watt v. State
Decision Date | 10 December 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 3494.,3494. |
Citation | 33 S.W.2d 744 |
Parties | WATT v. STATE et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Gray County; Clifford Braly, Judge.
Suit by B. T. Watt against the State and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
A. A. Ledbetter, of McLean, and R. H. Templeton, of Wellington, for appellant.
Cook, Smith & Teed and John F. Studer, all of Pampa, Robert Lee Bobbitt, Atty. Gen., and Sloan Blair, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
This suit was filed by appellant in the district court of Gray county against the state of Texas, R. L. Bobbitt, R. S. Sterling, Cone Johnson, W. R. Ely, Gib Gilchrist, the highway commission of Texas, T. J. Coffey, A. A. Callahan, and C. M. Carpenter, and the plaintiff alleges in his petition that the defendants were attempting to condemn and appropriate certain lands of appellant for right of way for state highway No. 75; that said land and premises constituted appellant's resident and business homesteads; that said proceedings were being had in the county court of Gray county, and that they were illegal and void, and prayed for a temporary writ of injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, their agents and employees, from further proceedings in the county court of said county and from entering plaintiff's property and interfering with him in its use, and upon final hearing that the injunction be made perpetual.
A temporary restraining order was issued by the court, and the case was set down for hearing upon the plaintiff giving a required bond. On hearing the defendants, state of Texas, the highway commission and members thereof, and the Attorney General of Texas filed their plea in abatement of the suit as to them. This plea in abatement was sustained by the court, and as to the last named defendants the case was dismissed. Proceeding to trial as against the remaining defendants, upon hearing of the evidence the court dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied the temporary injunction. This ruling was, however, held in abeyance pending appeal, upon the giving of bond by the appellant in the sum of $2,000.
The appellant assigns error on the part of the trial court in dissolving the temporary writ of injunction theretofore granted and in denying appellant's petition for a permanent injunction upon the ground that the county court had no jurisdiction or authority to condemn the land and premises of appellant for the right of way for state highway for the following reasons, to wit:
It will be seen from the appellant's assignments that the complaint is: (1) There being an error by the Legislature in the reference to the articles referred to and the corrective act being an attempt to revive a repealed act, said attempt to revive was void because the caption of the reference statute failed to state the purpose of revival of the repealed act; and (2) because the act referred to, if corrected, had been repealed, and was not in force and effect at the time the reference was made.
Article 6674n, R. C. S. 1925, provides as follows:
It is not necessary, however, for us to pass upon the question of whether or not articles 6984 and 6985 had been repealed and were not in effect at the time the reference was made to them in article 6674n, and it is not necessary for us to discuss the question of the mistake of the Legislature in referring to those articles for the following reasons: The rule has been laid down that, where a general power has been conferred by the Constitution, or a duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred. Judge Cooley states the rule to be:
Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) (Carrington) vol. 1, p. 138.
This being true, it necessarily followed that, the state having been granted the general power to condemn by the Constitution, the procedure to be followed in condemnation proceedings generally will or can be followed in condemning land for public use, and the questions raised by appellant in the foregoing assignment become immaterial. Section 17, art. 1, of the Constitution of Texas, recognizes the right of the state to condemn for its uses.
Article 3264 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas 1925 provides as follows, in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gill v. Falls County
...Vernon's Ann.St., confers upon the State the power to exercise the right of eminent domain for its use. In the case of Watt v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 744, er. ref., it was held that where a general power has been conferred upon the State or a duty enjoined under the Constitution, ev......