Honorable . * Lmell C. Holt O&icol wO. M- 483 cm DistridAttorney &shurComtyCmrthouse Gilmer,Texas Re: bho shouldpay the initialcourt cc& demitwhen Objec- tions are filed by theamdemeeinan eninentdanainpro- ceding, after an Pmrdby theSpecial kar Mr. Holt: Cdssioners .
Ycx askedthe follcwingquestion: '%o shouldpay the initialcoxt costdqmsitwhenabjections are filedby theccnheeinan sminmtdcmainpmceeding, afteran?ward by the SpecialCamissionem?"
Article 3267, Vernon'sCivil Statutes,detenaines when each party shall pay actstin a mdmmation action. You will note the languageof Article 3267 with regard to when the con&nnee shall pay the am&. It statesas foil=: II . but if the amuntawardadby the c&tssioners as damagesorthe judqsnt of the camtyrmrtshallbeforthesams or less mountof damagesthan the mount offeredbefore prcoaedingswere -C=L then'checcetsshallbepaidbythemner of the property."
It has long been held in this State that upon a filingof Objectionsto Award of Camissioners by amdsmor or ccndemee findinosof Ccmnissionersansnullifiedand a trialde novois required,0iUiganSoftWaterServicev. State, 385 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Civ.App. 1964, error ref. n.r.e.); Xl zcccnm* v. Akers, 181 s.w.2a719 (Tex.CiV.ppp. A-4 1944, error ref. w.0.xix- The SupremeCourt in Elliottv. Jose@, 163 Tex. 71. 351 S.W.2d 79 (1961)statedwith recrard to the actioni.ntheComtyCaurt aS follms:
-
Ken. Lcwell C. Holt, Page 2 (x-483)
II .The trialinthe countycourt is a . .
danovo appellateproceeding. Statev. Nelson, 160 Tex. 515, 334 S.W.Zd 788."
The Supremecourt recognizesthatwhenObjections are filed totheR+mrdof SpecialCasnissionerstierehas been an appeal tOtkCOUlltyCOLUt. Hoer, it is not an appeal as frcna trialccurt judgment,butitis tobe adancrroprcceeding in the camty court.
FUle142,Texas Pules of Civil Procedure,states:
"?hecle&nuy requirefruntheplaintiff securityfor costsbefore issuingany process,butshall file thepetition and enterthesawmthedocket.. . .II
In City of &xrstcnv. Susholtz,22 S.W.2d 537 (affm'd37 S.W.2d 728, Tex.Ccmm.App.l931),the Court held as follcws:
"FUr&emxze,atleastbyanalcgytolike appealsfran justicecourts,itwouldseem to follow,first, that the perfectionof this resort franthe catmissioners' ward. to the am&y courtvacated theaction of the loderbody andgave to the proceeding as it then stcodin the intermediateoxrt the same status as if it had been originally ccxmenoadthere; . . ."
The Suprem Cart in Denti Cwnty v. Branmar,361 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Sup.1962) at page 200 states: II . We reccgnizethat the filing of the . '
original.objectionsand exceptionsby Bramner [the ccndemneelsimply ccnvertedthe special andenmationproceedingsinto asuitandin- vestedthe oxmty courtwith jurisdictionof the subjectmatter of the case. See Fitz- gerald v. City of Dallas,lkx.Civ.pgP.,34 S.W,2d 682, wr. ref.; State v. Nelson, 160 Tex. 515, 334 S,W.2d 788.
"[3] The filing of the originalobjections in this casevacated the awardof the special Caanissi~. The amdcnnor, L!entm County, becane the plaintiffandBrmmer, the am- demnee,becanethedefendsnt...."
I 2307- Han. Lowell C, Holt, Page 3 (M-4831
It~uldseenclearthenfranthedecisi~bythe appellatecourts in Texas that when an Objectionis filed, regardlessofwhichparty files the sane, the actionby the ccnmissionersis mnpletely nullifiedand vacated. The ccn- deamorbeccses tie Plaintiff,and the an~ebecams the Defendant.
Acondemnation casethenproceeds totrialonthe pleadings,i.e., the Petitionfiled by the aondstmorto cm- darmthelandbelonging tothe an&nmee. It is notnecessary for the ca&emee to plead anything,i.e., particularize his danagesor set forth my specificdamage claims,Fitzgerald v. City of Dallas,34 S.W.2d 682 (Tex.Civ.App. 1930, error ref.);Kennedyv. City of Dallas,201 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.Civ. *. 19'47,error ref.). Therefore,what we have is a case in theComtyCourtwhichhas been filedby the cmdmmor. Since the ccndemorhas filedhis Petitionin mndamation