Case Name: LEONARD v. SMALL, County Judge, et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-03-01
Citations: 28 S.W.2d 826
Docket Number: No. 12277
Parties: LEONARD v. SMALL, County Judge, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 28
Pages: 826–830

Head Matter:
LEONARD v. SMALL, County Judge, et al.
No. 12277.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.
March 1, 1930.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1930.
S. F. Houtebens, Clark & Clark, J. Harold Craik and P. Walter Brown, all of Port Worth, for appellant.
R. E. Rouer, J. M. Ployd, and R. B. Young, Jr., all of Port Worth, for appellees.

Opinion:
DUNKLIN, J.
Tbe city of Port Worth filed with tbe judge of tbe county court a petition against J. M. Leonard for tbe condemnation of lot 3 and tbe east 40 feet of lot 4 in tbe city of Port Worth, to be used as a public park of tbe city. Upon the filing of that application, tbe county judge appointed three commissioners to assess tbe damages resulting to Leonard, tbe owner, from tbe taking of said property for that purpose. After being duly sworn and after due notice to all tbe parties, the commissioners beard tbe evidence and returned into court their report showing an assessment of damages in tbe sum of $31,500. Exceptions and objections were duly taken to such finding by J. M. Leonard and filed with tbe county judge within ten days after tbe report of tbe commissioners.
Tbe issues were then tried and determined by tbe county court before a jury. Only one issue was submitted to tbe jury, which, together with tbe answer thereto, was as follows: "What do you find from the evidence is tbe reasonable cash market value at the time of tbe property in controversy? Answer: $81,000.00."
That verdict was rendered June 13, 1029. On June 15, 1929, tbe plaintiff city of Port Worth filed its motion to' set aside tbe verdict on numerous grounds alleged in tbe motion. On June 25, 1929, tbe city filed another motion for tbe court to discontinue and dismiss the case from its docket and to permit plaintiff to abandon further proceedings in the cause. Several grounds were urged in that motion, one of which was that tbe damages allowed by tbe jury were excessive and far above tbe amount the city council contemplated paying when it decided to institute tbe condemnation proceedings, and that the city was without funds available for use in acquiring the property and paying the damages so assessed by tbe jury. On June 28, 1929, tbe defendant Leonard filed a motion to have judgment entered in accordance with tbe verdict of tbe jury. On tbe same day the court sustained the motion of tbe plaintiff to dismiss the suit and discontinue tbe condemnation proceedings theretofore instituted by it.
Prom that judgment of dismissal, Leonard duly prosecuted bis appeal to this court, and tbe record of tbe proceedings was duly filed in this court on July 11, 1929. After bis appeal had been thus perfected and filed in this court, Leonard filed bis application for writ of mandamus to be issued from this court compelling and requiring tbe judge of tbe county court to determine the merits'of plaintiff's motion to set aside tbe verdict, and, in tbe event the same should be overruled, to enter a judgment for condemnation of tbe property in controversy in plaintiff's favor and in favor of defendant Leonard for tbe sum of $81,000 as damages for tbe taking of it, in accordance with tbe verdict of tbe jury.
Tbe appeal referred to above is now pending and undetermined, and whether or not tbe defendant Leonard is entitled to tbe relief prayed for in bis application for mandamus is tbe principal issue involved in the appeal. Therefore, to grant the writ of mandamus would have tbe effect of disposing of tbe entire controversy presented by the appeal before tbe case on appeal is reached in its regular order.
It is a familiar rule that, pending an appeal, this court has jurisdiction to grant ancillary writs, such as injunctions, to preserve tbe status of tbe property or matter in controversy until tbe appeal is decided, but it is quite clear that tbe material and controlling issue involved in this appeal cannot be summarily determined by a proceeding such as is now before this court. Accordingly, tbe application for tbe writ of mandamus now presented to this court is denied and refused, without prejudice, however, to tbe rights of the applicant to have tbe same questions determined when tbe appeal which be has prosecuted is beard.