The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-06-26
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO vs.
MARIE o. GRANDJEAN Ell AL; tres

| lhh CITY OF SAN ANTONIO vs.
MARIE o. GRANDJEAN EFT AL: tres
pass TO try title to parcel of real es-
tate claimed by the city as part of q
street-Judgment OF the court OF civil
appeals reversed and that OF the trial
court affirmed.
The city, defendant below, pleaded spe-
cially mat at one time the property be-
longed TO the community estate OF the
plalntln and Ulysses Grandjean. her hus-
band. aud that in a regular proceeding in
sttuted against the husband for that pur-
pose The property had been condemned as
street and the damages assessed and
PAID. II also pleaded that after the at
tempted condemnation and assessment the
plaintiff. with knowledge of the facts.
had received one-half the sum assessed. her
husband having received the other half
ulysses Grandican was made a party and
Judgment In favor OF the city against him
Tor the amount of the assessment was
prayed for n the event that plaintiff should
recover against the city.
The trial court gave a Judgment for the
city. and this judgment was reversed and
q Judgment rendered for the plaintiff by
The court OF civil appeals
ihe court Of civil appeals found as a
TACT That the land in controversy was the
| SEPARATE property of plaintiff: that the
condemnation proceedings against Ulysses
Grandjean were regular: thar The assessed
| Vaiue or the land. $4,000. was rendered 10
the husband In the presence OF the wife
ana the tender refused, and that il was
'hen placed in the bank to the credit of
piA'htiu and her husband aud subsequently
acc pied, half by the husband and the
other half by plaintiT. Asterward plaintiff
ana her husband were divorced. The ques-
| uon Is. can she. under these circumstances
reclaim the property?
me right to take private property for
puplic use does not involve the necessity
OF any grant or conveyance on part OF the
owner, or of any judicial decree The
otate mas the Inherent and paramount right
10 inc property, when needed for public
purposes, and the determination by the
proper authority that the necessity for the
taxing exists and the adjustment with the
owner OF the question OF compensation,
however effected, completes the appropr!a-
ZION, and devotes the property 10 public
use. The right OF eminent domain may be
exercised against the consent OF the owner
'or II the owner consented its exercise
would he unnecessary Hence II is not con-
slsttni with the theory OF the doctrine that
any conveyance from the owner should be
essential 10 pass the title When the
owner accepts as compensation sum OF
money. whatever the AMOUNT, and In what
ev'r manner arrived at. his property to the
extent OF the taking is appropriated and
appropriated 10 the public use,
:. NPpNlhg these rules 10 the case at bar,
u Is clear that plaintiff would not have
been entitled to recover had she been sui
lut's when she drew tho sl7.5Oo out OF the
hank We do not think that the fact of
ner overture makes a difference. Under
our law a married woman's property is
hers In her own right. This right, except
when restrained by statute, carries with it
we power OF alienation We are OF the
opinion that our statute regulating the
conveying Of wifes separate property has
no application to this case. because no con-
Veyanee was necessary. When the coun-
eli had declared that the property should
De condemned, plaiutiff had the right to her
compensation. and she was not disabled.
MIN the consent OF her husband. TO waive
tho invalidity OF the assessment proceed-
nss and 10 accept the money rendered or
ohe-haif thereof in full satisfaction, Their
consent and election is evidsnced by their
aeeepance OF the money, aud neither can
how disaffirm that action.
opinion by Gaines C. r