b d I 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

r6novo6 tha prop6rtpowaer8fi teaoe froa th6 roadwa 

I' 

18 It the aouaty’r obl&etlon to rebuild 

8a d ha00 ?or laid property owa6r6, Or IAO;~~ 

f$$good Oondition 68 it W66 ktOr8 b6 L 

213 
2L4 

pnorabl6 Don 3. IXrkrr, Face 6 

oatiOIl FrOOeOdi~, FU.WhtNJ~, OOntX'-t Ol- otherwire. 

Seotloa 17 of Artlole I of the 

prides thata 

st6t6 COli6titUtiOll 

"h'o pemoa'8 property shell be 

aged or dertroyed for or applied to 

taken, damwithout odb~u6t.s oompsnsatloa being 

pubUc uee 

Imae, unl8ss 

by the coneeat of awh~pers~nj and, rhea taken, 

8xOeFt for the U8e of the 6tate, 8UOh 00XZIp8ll66- 

tion rhall be first mnde, or scoured by a deposit of money; and no lrrevooabla or unooatrollab18 @3r& Of 8p601Q1 5W1irir6&38 Or iEEUUllitiO8, 

8hall be nadei but all prlrlle@e and franohi8es 

~ra.ntOd by the L.e~lslature, or oreated under its 

authority shall be 8ubjeot to the control thsr60f.m 

we quote iron Texas JurlS. Vol. 16, p. 994, 08 Sol1-1 

*In other jur~sdiOtion8 there 16 a OonfliOt 

of authority upon the question OS the right to 

recover the costs of any renmol of bull&n&@ 

ilnd rences as a separ& item of damme, aok 

mthoritlee holdlry: that thla Co8t l6 merely (L 

iaot to be oonsideied ln drtetiniry: the de&w 

clatlon oi the land by the t&la&. In T6xa8, 

while all authorltlea qree that the Jury nay 

tske aooount of Ssct that the rsnoval OS 6tru6- 

tures 18 neoersitated by the Condenn6t~on of 

part oi the traot, some deci6loM appear to lndiaate that ruch dam&e Maya not be awarded air a 

8epsrate item, but other6 hold t&t a rerdlct is 

not objeotlonable for the sole rea6on thst the 

OO6t Of the rerntal Of 6trUOtW68 tlpp6m8 66 6 

dlstlnot item and rerdiot. 

Vhe 8ubstantial point involved is that, 

under the eneral priaolpie o? the law of &amages, the % 6tFUOtiOIl8 lU3Oey not ba 80 dram a8 

to permit a double reoorery. The dsfendant is 

protooted where, on an award inoludlry an lt6m 

for remral or 8truatwe6, it 16 made clear that 

the generul item for depreciation exolude8 the 

.eeparste item6 mentioned. A fortiori, where a 

8il@O 8m 16 awarded ror all depreolatlon ineluding the cost of removal of stNQttme6, nn 
215 

Bonorablo Doa D. 

In8truotloa 

of reamring 

conrider the soat .* __ 

of depraolatloa 18 not objeotlonable either a6 

permit t1 a doublr 

%t 

Mootery or a8 being a oharge 

oa the ve of the ovldeaoe. 

"On the other band, Inrtruotlorrs are objsotlonable a8 allowIng a double recovery where the 

jury are oharged to oonslder ovary Saot and airomuIt.ance of evidence In a88esslng the deprsolatlon, and then, by a further lmtruotloa, are 

directed to oonslder the oo8t of t0mofa.l and reereotloa of fence8 .w See the aa8e6 of W$'6S TS. 

LfoLaIll, 100 S. Ib'. 802; city Of San isntonlo t8. 

Fite, 224 9. E. 911; Ft. Forth and D. 5. P. 1. 

Company ~6. Judd, 4 S. W. (26) 1032; Central 

Fewer and Light Co. ~8. Sillacy County, 14 S. 8. 

(2d) 102. 

No 6peoIflo 6a8wer to the aborementloned question 

could apply to all of the tt a688 which might be Involved In 

aoqulring right-of-Way for road purposa8 and the rebulldl~ 

or replaoing of fen008 for the propemty ovrner8, but each 0~186 

would be 60Yemed by it8 own facts. 

Where right-of-way 18 acquired by purohase, contract 

or otheruI8e except by oondenmatIon prooesdIng8 an¶ the con8truotlon or rebuildlag o? the fence 16 the vhoie or a part of 

the oQn6IderatIon for tuoh new right-of-way or addltlonal 

right-of-ray reaured by tlm oounty, then the oounty would be 

obligated to carry out It6 agrement With the landowner regarding the rebuIldinp, or oonstruatlon of the fenoe acoording to 

the oontract or egreepent had between the parties. 

In the oa8o of ?!orrI6 VII. Coleman County, 28 S. F. 

380, the court 8aidt 

We thiok the item In the acoount for cost of 

fire miles of fenoe, a8 a 4istinCt item of danIa688, 

via8 properly stricken out. The question la, what 

additional burden was put upon the land aifeoting 

its value by opening the road7 

If 6UCh a6w or additional ri 

by oondsnnatlon proceedings, then the 'j 

ht4f-way I8 acquired 

udgmmt of the court 

would oontrol . 
- . 

216 

gonorable Don D. Parker, Page 4 

Trustin% that the foregoing answers your Inquiry, 

m remsin 

YOUr8 very truly 

ATTO?JE!f GENWJ. OF T2iX.S 

By t&fQQflL 

tide11 7illlIam 

A8SistElLt 

COMMITTEE A r.4