Case Name: POWELL v. HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-03-29
Citations: 135 S.W. 1153
Docket Number: 
Parties: POWELL v. HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 135
Pages: 1153–1156

Head Matter:
POWELL v. HOUSTON & T. C. R. CO.
(Supreme Court of Texas.
March 29, 1911.)
1. Eminent Domain (§ 307 ) — Dama&e to Pboperty — Question eob Juey.
Const, art. 1, § 17, provides that no person’s property shall be damaged for .public use without adequate compensation. A railroad Was constructed across a city street about 200 feet from plaintiff’s lot abutting thereon, and upon which he operated a store. The railroad raised its grade about 2 feet, and obstructed the crossing, and delayed the completion of the work, by which the travel of persons over the street from points beyond the track was interrupted, and the alteration impaired the ac cess to and from his property by persons who would have traded with him, whereby the value of his property was diminished. Held, that the court did not err in submitting to the jury the issue of damage to the property and to the trade of plaintiff.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Dec. Dig. § 307. ]
2. Eminent Domain (§ 106 ) — “Damage” to Property — Access and Egress.
The ownership of a lot abutting on a street carries with it as property the right of unimpaired access and egress, and whatever impairs that right and causes a depreciation in the value of.the lot constitutes damage within the meaning of Const, art. 1, § 17.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Eminent Domain, Cent. Dig. §§ 282-289; Dec. Dig. § 106.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, pp. 1812-1820; vol. 8, pp. 7625, 7626.]
3. Eminent Domain (§ 106 ) —Damage to ' Property — Railway Crossings — Changing Grade — Location oe Property.
In an action for damages for obstructing a street in raising a grade of a railroad crossing, it is not necessary that the obstruction should be in front of or near to the plaintiff’s property, but the test of the right to recover is what effect does the crossing and condition in which it was have upon the value of the plaintiff’s property, and upon the exercise of his right to ingress and egress.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Cent. Dig. §§ 282-289; Dec. Dig. § 106. ]
4. Eminent Domain (§ 91 ) — Damage to Property — Loss a Peculiar One.
In an action for damages for raising of a grade of a railroad and obstructing the crossing, that the injury was common to all other property fronting on the street will not bar plaintiff’s right of recovery for loss peculiar to plaintiff’s property and not what he suffers in common with the community.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Cent. Dig. §§ 234, 235; Dee. Dig. § 91. ]
5. Eminent Domain (§ 307 ) — Damages— Changing Grade — Question for Jury.
In an action against a railroad company for obstructing a street crossing and raising a grade, where the plaintiff testified that his property before the change was worth $1,300, and after the grade had been so changed, and up. to the time of the trial, it was worth one-third less, it was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of damage to the lot.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Dec. Dig. § 307. ]'
6. Eminent Domain (§ 300 ) — Damages— Profits from Trade.
In an action for damages for raising a grade and obstructing a street, where plaintiff testified as to the volume of trade which he had before the grade of the street was interfered with, and the volume he did while the crossing was obstructed, and also since it had been opened, and the average per cent, of profit that he made on goods sold, and that he had many customers from the opposite side of the railroad track, who had previously come to his store, and that while the obstruction existed many of them did not visit him, and that he had customers upon the opposite side of the track to whom he delivered articles upon order, and the condition of the crossing made his access to those customers more difficult, a jury might with reasonable certainty ascertain the damage done.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Dec. Dig. § 300. ]
Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.
Action by S. W. Powell against the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (125 S. W. 330) reversing a judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff brings errot.
Reversed, and judgment remanded to the District Court for another trial.
Treadwell & Tarver and Richard Mays, for plaintiff in error. Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, R. S. Neblett, and R. R. Owens, for defendant in error.
Fof other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key' No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BROWN, C. J.
We copy this statement of the evidence from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals;
"The evidence shows that appellee owned a lot of land on the south side of First avenue, about 200 feet east of where the railroad crossed First avenue; said crossing being just west of Seventh street. Appellant, in attempting to comply with the Texas Railroad Commission's order to so construct its track that the Trinity & Brazos Valley Railway, which ran along Sixth street, just east of appellee's store, could cross under appellant's track at a point a short distance north of First avenue, raised its track across First avenue to a height that rendered said street at said point practically impossible for travel and stopped work thereon for several months. ' During this time the city placed obstructions at said point which deterred any person from attempting to cross at said point. First avenue was a regular thoroughfare for persons entering the city from the north and northeast. The main business section of the city is on Beaton street, and First avenue intersects Beaton street about two blocks north or where said business section begins. To reach the business section of said Beaton street, it is as near for parties coming into the city from the north and northeast to leave First avenue at Fifth or Seventh streets, go down to Second or Third avenues, and thence to Bea-ton street, as it is to travel First avenue to Beaton street, thence to the business section. Travel was diverted at Fifth avenue, thence down said avenue to Second avenue, thence diagonally across one1 block to Third avenue, thence to Beaton street. The appellant's right of way is immediately west of Seventh street.
"Appellee's store abutted on First avenue, which was obstructed by the appellant some 200 feet west from said store; but the street in front of said store and ingress and egress to and from the store was not interfered with, further than the free passage along said street at the point of. obstruction. There was a street immediately west of the block in which appellee's premises were situated, ¿nd between the obstruction and said premises, and this and other streets running north and south and east and west, all open to travel, which gave him and that section free access to all parts of the city, and the only interference, as before stated, to travel was the obstruction on First avenue caused by appellant, and this obstruction did not increase the distance to the main part of town for the appellee or those living in that section, nor those living in the country to the north and northeast. The obstruction only caused an inconvenience in reaching that portion of First avenue lying west of the obstruction to those living east thereof, and they were only inconvenienced by having to travel the distance of around one block."
We add to the statement as made by the Court of Civil Appeals that the plaintiff below alleged in his petition that the work was prolonged an unreasonable time, beyond what was necessary to do it, during which time the crossing was impassable, which caused damage to his business. He testified to facts from which a jury might have concluded that his trade was greatly lessened, causing damage. Plaintiff testified that before the raising of the grade his property was worth $1,300, and since that crossing was raised it was, worth one-third less.
Article 1, § 17, of our state Constitution as it is applicable to the facts of this case may be read thus: "No person's property shall be damaged for public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person." Does the evidence show such damage to the plaintiff's property as comes within the protection of the above section of the Constitution? We condense and restate the facts which the evidence tends to establish. The railroad was constructed and operated across a street in the city of Corsicana about 200 feet from a lot abutting on that street which plaintiff owned and upon which he had a storehouse where he transacted his business as a merchant. Under a contract with the Brazos Valley Railroad, approved by the Railroad Commission, the defendant in error raised its grade at that point about two feet, and thereby obstructed the crossing for a time, and that it unnecessarily delayed for several months the completion of the work by which the travel of persons over the said street from points beyond the railroad track was interrupted, which travel would have come to the store of the plaintiff in error for the purpose of trading with him. The alteration of the said grade by raising it two feet higher mp.de it more difficult to cross and impaired the plaintiff's right of access to and from his property' by persons who would have traded with him and who had been trading with him, whereby the value of his property was diminished in the amount alleged in the petition. The change in the grade is permanent, .and whatever effect it had upon the property of the plaintiff is permanent in its nature.
The ownership of the lot abutting upon the street carried with it as property the right of free and unimpaired access thereto and egress therefrom, and whatever impaired that right and caused a depreciation of the value of the lot constituted damage to the lot within the meaning of the Constitution. O'Brien v. Central Iron Co., 158 Ind. 218, 63 N. E. 302, 57 L. R. A. 508, 92 Am. St. Rep. 305; G., C. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Fuller, 63 Tex. 467.
It was not necessary that the obstruction should be in front of or near to the plaintiff's property, but the test of the right to recover in this action is: What effect did that crossing and the condition in which it was have upon the value of the plaintiff's property and upon the exercise of his right of egress and ingress?
"The conclusions thus stated in the first edition have been verified by numerous decisions since rendered, and, we believe, without any material dissent, except in the ease of Missouri, as shown below. If a street or public way communicating with the plaintiff's premises is obstructed elsewhere than in front of the plaintiff's property, as by a viaduct or bridge, or approach thereto, or by a railroad crossing a street in a cut or on an embankment, or otherwise, and the result of such obstruction is to render such property less valuable either to sell or to use, then the property is damaged, and compensation may be recovered to the extent of the depreciation." Lewis on Eminent Domain, par. 354, p. 646. The above extract from that excellent writer is supported by many authorities, of which we cite these: Rigney v. Chicago, 102 Ill. 64; Coker v. A., K. & N. Ry. Co., 123 Ga. 483, 51 S. E. 481; Highbarger v. Nilford, 71 Kan. 331, 80 Pac. 633; Dantzer v. Ind., etc., R. R., 141 Ind. 604, 39 N. E. 223, 34 L. R. A. 769, 50 Am. St. Rep. 343; Cooper v. Dallas, 83 Tex. 242, 18 S. W. 565, 29 Am. St. Rep. 645; G., H. & W. Ry. Co. v. Hall, 78 Tex. 175, 14 S. W. 259, 9 L. R. A. 298, 22 Am. St. Rep. 42.
There can be no doubt, under these authorities and the facts of this case, that a Jury might find that there was damage caused by the crossing to the property and to-the trade of the plaintiff-in error. But the Court of Civil Appeals placed their decision upon the additional ground that the depreciation in the value of the lot, by reason of the condition of the said crossing, is such as was suffered by all others owning property in his vicinity. This proposition can best be answered by quoting from Railway Co. v. Golberg, 68 Tex. 688, 5 S. W. 826, as follows: "The fact that the injury was common to all other property holders on the street would not bar the plaintiff's right of recovery. The plaintiff sues for a special damage to his own property by reason of defendant's having impaired the use of the street upon which it fronts. It does not affect his right to recovery that the owners of property fronting on the same street have been injured in the same manner. This is a loss peculiar to plaintiff's property, and not one he suffers in common with, the community generally where the property is situated. G., C. & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Fuller, 63 Tex. 467."
The law is so clearly stated by Judge Gaines in the above extract that we are unable to add any force to the reasoning which supports the conclusion announced. The depreciation of .the value of the lot which belonged to Powell does not affect others who might own property in the same neighborhood, neither does the depreciation in the value of the property of others affect Powell. Therefore the injury suffered by Powell is special and personal to himself and does not come within the rule which is invoked by the Court of Civil Appeals.
In addition to the statement of the Court of Civil Appeals, the plaintiff testified that his property before the change in the grade in the street was worth $1,300, and after the grade had been so changed and up to the time of the trial it was worth one-third less than that sum. This was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of damage to the lot and which was submitted by the court to the jury in a charge fair and just to the defendant. [6] Plaintiff also testified as to the volume of trade which he did before the time the grade of the street was interfered with and the volume of trade that he did during the time that the crossing was obstructed, also since it had been opened. He also testified to the average per cent, of profit that he made on the goods sold. He stated that he had many customers from different directions from the opposite side of the railroad track who had previously come to his store over the street on which this obstruction now exists, and that during the time the obstruction existed many of those customers did not visit him as they did before. 1-Ie also stated that he had customers on the opposite side of the railroad track to whom he delivered articles upon order, and that the condition of the crossing made his access to those customers much more difficult than it was previously. • It would be quite difficult to prove with any degree of certainty the damages which might arise from the interference with trade under circumstances such as are shown in this case; but the evidence is such that a jury might with reasonable certainty ascertain the damage done. We therefore hold that the trial court did not err in submitting to the jury the issue of damage to the property and to the trade of plaintiff, and that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing and rendering the judgment in this case.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals be reversed, and that the cause be remanded to the district court for another trial.