OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN / 
Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 2 

our lnveetigation of authorities disolosed that 

..- - fn a large number of states snob a Jornaer or separare 

owners 01 separate and distinct parcels of land, in a 

sing&a cond~emnation prooeeding, is provided for br statute. 

Sea hailroad V. Christy, 92 Ill. 339; Barton v. Eleotrlo 

Railway, 220 Ill. 99; Taooma v. Bonell, 58 lash. 595, 109 

P. 60; Friedenwald v. Mayor of Baltimore, 94 lid. 116. 

Other states, like Texas,.do not by statute 

speoltlaally prwfde tar the joinder of separate owner8 ei 

separate tract8 oi lend In a single oondematlon preoeedln& 

The courts in two euoh states, Xa8aaoBusetts and Ohio, wla%eh 

iOllow the oommon lew syeite% O? practice, alearly permit 8a0B 

Joinder erea In tha absenoe,oi stloh statutory qutbority. 

See City of Springfield 'I. Sleeper, ll6 Mass. 589; Barton 

T. Wigglesworth, 119 Bare. S368~ Qlesy t. Railroad, 4 QUO 

St. 308. 

A rsooguized text writer on safnent bmai* atate8 

the rule to be aa iollowsr 

"Sa the abeenoo of any expresrr~ statatarf 

prorl~loa Ltrould 8eeivta re8t ia ,M%e dl8oretlon of the court whether diatinot alalms to? 

dartwage by the same work d-1 improvement rrhomld 

be tried aopamtely or togathor". E Lewis on 

Eminent DomaIn ll5, hation 666. 

In Texa8 the general stat6ties whloh @orem the 

exerofss of the pewer OS maiaerrt demaia are Artloles 

5~664%91, inoluslte, being Title 56, Other titlea rhloh 

we will not list here prwl%e for the ereroise of the pewer 

or eminent demaln br epeaifia bodies. By Artiale 6694& it 

is prorfded that the Hi&war G~ission in the oondaaarihion 

of laed for highna 

out ia Title B2. 5 

purposes shall foll#w tb proaedure set 

he faot that this road has been deslgp 

nated as a highway by the Highway doralseion places these 

proaeedlngs within the provisions of Artlale 8694% Fer the 

purpose of this dlsauseion, it is neaessary for us to exe~%e 

only three of the artlollss under Title SE. 

Among other thhga, Art.lole Se64 provides for an 
Honorable R. A. Rarton, Paga 3 

attempt to agree with the landowner on the amount or 

damages ; appliaation to the oounty judge upon failure to 

agree on damages; appointment by the county jadee of three 

special oommissionera to asaess damages; aud esrvloe of 

notioe on the landownera of the time and plaoe of ths 

hearing, either personally or by publioatlon. ‘trader Artielk 3265, the Legislature has provided for the method to 

be rollowed~ in assessing the damages. q’he proaedure to be 

followed in appealing from damages and oompensatlon assessed by the emwissloners is provided in Artlale 3266. 

OUT courts have often pointed oat that s&as tke 

powet of om%nsnt domsla le in derogation ot the aoma 

rl&t, statutes waiah govern Its areroise ,ara to bs atrlot3j 

eoawtrasd and are not to be extended beFond their plain 

provlsiQns. Van Ya~kenburgh v. Ford (Giv. App. Galrestan, 

lSl8), 209 8. W. SO4j aifimed (Gwma. App. Sea. %, 192X), 

22B 8. 1. 3.941 XaIarerbeklma T.&lo 109 Tex. 106, 204 8.W. 

use fl8l8); Oi3@ f. ztexar aowntr feir. 4p. M95). 23 B.W. 

:2- 

&a, al88, 2 Dill on Bukisipal t?orporat1oa8, 5ao. 

Prooedur%l 8tetut68 or thl# nature ara seldom 

80 mmprehuaat+e aa to rssolrs e+ey question that say 

arisu in regard to their applirrattcm, and it oftmi bemaea 

aeeeasery to rseort to othar aathority to dettmalme mathr8 

Rat speoifioally aavers& by tihem. 

ConQemnatloa preoeedlng8 Pabar Title 8,2, in 

thalr earl7 phases spa far as drtermluat,ion of the landowner*e damagua is ~onoernud, bear i&1%&t rerramblanoe 

to trfal 0r otbar 68uilel. After rafiure to agree oa 

daamges the untlre praowdzSg8 PM &errfad oa bafe~a a 

faot-finding, quasi-Jwdiaial bodr eonalsting, of ttuee aommiemloneru, who hear erlaenoe and asasss the damages. 

The werds *plaintffP aad %lefemlantw at thin 

stage oan ba ased only in an auaommtmand liberal seasa, for 

the plaintlih ceompla3m or nothlng,i and the defendant deafes aa past or thraataaed wrong, but both partias are 

astora, ohs to aaquire title, the other to @et as larga 

compansation as he aan. 15 Am. Zw.r. 96S. Sea. 520. 

Hnmwaus deelsione have ~aa~~analo~lee to pro- 
Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 4 

acedings In our courts and have daolared that this special 

tribunal is governed by ths ordbnary rules of law and equity 

controlling the trial of oausea. 

and Taxae Railroad (Cir. 

Jones v. Xlssouri, Kansas 

Ap 

357, atf. (Comm. App., 1930 lp 

., Dallas 1929) 14 S. W. (2d) 

y. Railroad (Clr. App., 

24 S. W. (26) 366; Davidson 

1902! 57 S. W. 1093~2$o~~~~ z;,,, 

Small (MT. App. F‘t. Worth, 1930) 2S S, vi. 

rsfuaed. 

Lfbaral rule5 or joinder anaoanaed By ear oeurta 

apply with *pa@ ig%m ta them trtbugala. Ibaoe, t&a attea&tat atnra plaoad by ear oourta on eroidanoe af multipllsit~ of aq&W must ba otiaaidarad. In ardor to are&d 

rultipl:oitJ or suits. our reurtr share allowad litiganta 

great latitude in'Mltrw dirrerm demand8 * a al 

suit, and ire'quaqtlTr, diatlaat *au386 hmwo baan p UZP &d 

to be joined vhaa aueh jolade* was not Miapaaaabla. 

1 Tar, JW,. ,487, ,800. 91. Bae also 

196, 11 SC 1. lB&$ Craddook 7. Geodria, 9 

aor f. Cmr, 7S mx. 

4 hr. 678181 Hert%- 

authority iOr tlrs aeatamplatod jeiadar, tn wiaw at tiha 

re0t that aoadamti?r-plaIntIff Urf$f#S the am 6p00iri6 ri&t 

cr&eat eaoh evaav bet we amtd net rely ox6lealte~ en thslr 

geaeral oeatrxt~ 

*&fnarily whara,oo~aolidatien ef oauaea is paxmltted, joiad%r vi oaaaea aamet be obje&l~~abh, aad tlati 

la aspoolally tma vhan ooluellaatioa is panrittad deapfte 

pretaat ef *as of *ha litiganta, 

In a mms%%t 6aaa deolded by tha Wmaia6f06 of 

A~paala, appellPant*a sxoaption to the oenae2idatlon a? 

aererrl diatlnot actions agalaat earersl separate ewaara or 

separate and distisat traota et land was evwruLed. Uilliaaa 

6t al 1. Headarson 00-t Leres 

1955 3 

reremeat Dfstriot iQe.3 

(Ccnnm. Appp. Sea. 38, 90 9. 81. %d, as. uhilo lb is 

tree that tha oourt aited Artiola 7995, whioh SpeolriOally 

provides rep aazoh oonaolidatlen, 'wa bellera t&a rollewWg 

laaguage bl Taatlos Short la auffiolently bread to OQY~F 

oonaolldatlm sad joiader la ~tihar ooridmatlea proooediqga, 

and that It is, at laaat, Indioative ei the attitude Of the 

present aeurtir 
Honorable B. A. Esrton, Page 5 

"The trial judge, In the exercise of his 

dlsoretion, oonaolldated the suits. The mite 

were tried bafors the court without a jury and 

there Is nothing in this reoord to show that any 

harm hes been done the litigant by aonsolidatlng 

these suite. This holding is in line with the 

rule announoed by the decisions that It la tha 

publio pelioy of this state to avoid a multiplloit~ of aulta~w 

A starther indloatlea that our oenrts do net ragaxd the Iclinsnt D0aal.a 6tatatsa as beisg inflaxlbla and 

all-inolaaito, is tho fellewing langusga in Davidson f. 

Bailxead, aumt 

*J&may atataa thu right to make eppeam 

0k&166646 parthi %a oettSorred br atatuta.~ WIQ 

it aagu fe us that this right mriata ln the a&- 

nenoe or apaaial prevision, end is a nuouaoa~ 

fnoidaa$ to the right to oendema, fer it neul4 be 

idle ~to oqUer the pmmr to omsUamn aad at tha 

66mo tira 60 restriot a rf%pt as to dear thu &allread Cs a fu&gsent rhfsh would pmteot ita 

pssaeaeien and pr&eet it qgainet a dot&lo ruow~s~; aad our atetut-ue gevurnhg the praoeedisg 

wInan thu ebjeot 00 be l a o eq )iia his a d ceruidarad 

are ralz1.y auaoaptible of tha oonrrtraatioa we 

hare plaae4 epen thu.* 

Approa&iing tha problem trm anethw ax@., lat 

ma take into aeoowt the fast that a mejeritf, ii aet all, 

of the landowners sited by pablloation nilX net appear at the 

hearing fox! eaaussaiant of dsmagaa and ooapeaaatlea, aad 

that thuy will tall to appeal from tha desisle~a or tha mamlseienera within the wquiatto ten days pmvidod .ia Artiolo 

3266. Such owners would soquiw the atatwa of derondaata 

against rhea a default jad6auat had been taken, ahmu upon 

the expiration of that time, the ooanty jadgs ia reqaimd to 

szoE; deQiSiO6 0r the oemmissio3ers se a judgment OS 

Binolalr T. City or Dallas (Qir. App. Uaee, 

445 S. W/(&d) 465. 

1OSlL), 

Cn appeal, or in any other dirsot preotleUiag, 660 
Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 6 

allgfng that service Is suffioient, the appellants wowld 

be entitled to have, the declsfon set aside or reversed 

only If they oould show fundamenttil arror or harm and 

io=-T* Fennesa t. First X?atIonal Bank (Clr. App., 1923) 

256 S. J4. 6341 Fenstermaker v'. City of San Antonio (Glt. 

App. 1926) sff. (0omm. App. Seo. B, 1927) 290 5. V. 532. 

3ut mIsjoInder of oausea or parties doea not constitute 

fundenental error; it la not reached bT generel demurrer; 

on the oontrary, It must ba raised by a plea In a&atement, 

whloh Is qsited It not urged In 1ImIne. Bactoa v. Barmers' 

State Bspli t@mm. App., ;FeO. A, 1985) 276 6. It 177 an8 

ea8aa aft&l therein. 

Thus, oven t&cm& it shwld be.hei# ibit tba 

prepor pzocebure lmolu~ss a .sepaPa+e.hearIng ti to eaoh 

separate traot, the right to soah,a hclariag Is .nIred 

if mot pres4Med at t&s praper *Ms. **ton t, Pamam* " 

&ate 'Btbnk, 8apM. 

'It Is 01ir eoneluaIan, tikerefoxe, that In Teuu 

a joinaer, in a 8ingle 6Qnbmnatios proessbIng,~f separak 

ewaers af separate and dI@tlnet tracts of land is pmmlmsibl.. 

TrustFag that tti6 opinion ~~111 ful&r snswsr rour 

question, and that rm will (~13 upoa as It a~ addItIona 

inr-ti0n ia m&reQ. lid a~b 

A~PROVFDOcT 2% 1939 

h,*w 

ATTORNEY GIGNERAL OF TEXAR