The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-04-05
THE HIGHER COURTS.


April 8:
State of Texas vs.. Travis County.
This suit was originally brought by
Travis county against Christian &
Croker for rent claimed for the use
and occupation of what is known as
the old court house square. The state
interviewed, claiming the property and
the rent. The district court found for
the county and this judgment was up
held by the court of civil appeals.
The two main questions for discus
sion are, ~ did the premises in ques-
ton revert to the state on the
abandonment or non-user of
the county for the purposes
for which same were dedicated?
Did the county acquire title by
virtue of Sec. OF the special act of
May 80, 1898? Under Statute of the
Republic certain lots and blocks in
the city of Austin were set apart for
public uses and the purpose for which
they were reserved were set down
upon the maps and plats made in
1910 and filed in the general land Of
flee. The block in controversy was
marked upon the north hall court
house" and on the south half 'jail.n
All lots in the city were sold accord
ing to this map. From 1864 to 1876
this property was used by Travis
county for court house and jail
purposes. In 1876 the new court
house was built. 1t is about three
quarters of q mile from the old site
and more convenient. In view of the
fact that this property was distinctly
marked in accordance with the statute
of the vepublic the court thinks that
this taken in connection with other
facts in evidence is sufficient to show
dedication to the county for the pur-
potes specified. The fee, however,
never passed out of the state. 1t is
claimed that public rights we're ac-
quired in the use of the land, which
could not be impaired. We cannot
agree to this. If the land had been
dedicated unoualfiedly to public
uses, if, tor instance, the words Pub
lie parkn had been written on the
plot instead of the words "court
house" and "jail." Then the public
as we'll as the purchasers of ada 'ent
lots would have acquired rights in the
property beyond the power either OF
the state or the county to- divert or
affect The state pledgeu the land
only for specified uses, and when they
were abandoned there rested upon IL
no obligation to deviate the property
IN, ah RI
There are SON expressions In our re-
ports not in harmony with this
view, but they were not called
for by the facts and hence are not con-
elusive OF the question. (49 Tex, BAT
There is no question about the act OF
abandonment. We must regard the
intention at the time of the removal.
The county lett an old dilapidated
building to erect an elegant and costly
building upon land leased for ninety
nine years. There is absolutely Moth
ing to indicate q purpose to return.
The permanent purpose of the county
il not affected by the fact that the
state had the power to control the
lease. The fact that the state knew
and consented to the change would
not affect the act of abandonment.
WenoW come 10 The second question
it is insisted that the state by statutes
vested liz tho county all interest Ia the
property which can not be Invested.
| The act OF 1873 dedicated TO the couu-
ty of Travis block No. 1913, the m eeent
site of the courthouse, on which to
erect court house and Jail subject Il
certain conditions and restrictions
q
the county to sell tn property in con-
troversy in this suit and use the pro-
ceeds in the erection of the new court
house. In 1874 another act as passed
leasing the same land as was disposed
of by the act of 1898, to the county for
ninety.nine years upon different con
ditions. The act OF 1876 relates to the
act of 1874 and states that the addi-
tional purpose is to authorize the
county to issue bonds. 1t nowhere re-
fers to the act of 1873. The act of 1873
contained several reservations in
favor of the state. The facts that the
captions of the acts of 1873 and 1874
are precisely similar except that in
the latter one the word "lease" is
used instead of the word dedicate"
in the former one; that the act of 1874
purports to be an orig inal and not
an amendatory law and that
it in material respects changes
some of the terms of the first act and
adds other entirely new, indicates
that it was intended as substitute
and not an amendment. The act of
1874 was deficient in not providing for
the Issuance of bonds by the county
and it was to cure this that the act of
1875 was passed. This act was
amendatory, but was made to amend
the act of 1874 and not 1873, although
the latter alone referred to the issu-
ance of bonds. 1t seems that the leg
islature clearly intended by the stat
ntes of 1874 and 1875 to prescribe the
only rule that should govern in
the case provided for, and
they must therefore he held
to repeal the act of 1873
1t may be added that the act of 1873
was in the nature of proposition
which could not take effect until &C.
cepted by the county, and the facts
found do not evidence that it was ever
accepted or acted upon. The title to
the land was in the state. The case
to which it had appropriated it had
/ 4 L 4 4 a.. .N..N I.z....