Court Opinion

ID: 9833190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:31:11.205154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.426976
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Appellee in its motion for rehearing challenges the correctness of several conclusions reached by this court, as shown by excerpts from the motion, as follows:
“Because the court erred in finding that all the lots in Greenland Hills, the addition owned by the Greenland Hills Realty Company, had been sold at the time the appellants connected their sewer system with the sewer system of appellee, when, as a matter of fact, the evidence shows; only that the lots in that part of the addition, to which the appellee had prior to that time acquired title, had been sold and the north half of the addition was subsequently acquired.”
This criticism is leveled at the following conclusion found in the original opinion of the ‘court, to wit:
“At the time this connection was made, ap-pellee had sold all lots in the addition that were-served by this main.”
This conclusion was based, on the following: Mr. Frank McNeny, president of ap-pellee, testified, in substance, that Mr. Kline-(one of the defendants) first talked with him in regard to making a connection between the sewer mains of Greenville Crest and Greenland Hills about the middle of May, 1923, and at that time practically all lots served by the sewer involved in the suit were sold, and that all were sold prior to-January, 1924. According to the allegations, of appellee, its cause of action accrued January 11, 1924, and in support of that allegation, it was agreed in open court that, on-January 11, 1924, plaintiff (appellee) severed the connection theretofore made by appellants between these sewer mains without the consent of appellee, and on the same-day,. or the following day, appellants re-established this connection; hence the suit was based on the alleged unauthorized connection made at that time,, to wit, January-11, 1924.
Thus it appears that the conclusion reach*180ed by this court, to tbe effect that, at the time the connection of the sewer mains was made, for which the suit wag brought, ap-pellee had sold all lots in the addition served by the main, was fully justified by the evidence.
2. Appellee challenges the correctness of another conclusion, as follows:
“Because the Court erred in finding in its opinion that the city imposed and collected from individuals charges for sewer service when the evidence does not show this.to be a fact.”
This criticism is directed at the following paragraph of the opinion:
“The dedication of the streets and alleys in Greenland Hills addition was accepted by the city, all sewer and other mains weré laid and connections made under the supervision of its engineer, and, after resident lots were connected, the city imposed and collected from individuals charges for sewer service.”
While we do not regard this a fact of any particular materiality, it was casually mentioned as an evidentiary matter showing acceptance by the city of the dedication of the streets and alleys, etc., made by appellee, a fact abundantly shown otherwise, still the finding was justified by the following:
It was agreed in opqn court that certain allegations in defendant’s answer' should be considered as true,' among others, the following: That shortly prior to January 24, 1924, the defendants, owners of the Green-ville Orest addition, applied to the proper governing authorities of the city of Dallas for permission to connect with its sewer system, which was granted in accordance with the policy of the city upon the terms and conditions granted all other such additions, to wit, that said line should conform to the standard specifications and requirements of the city of Dallas, be constructed and connected under the supervision of the city engineering authorities, and that all houses or buildings connecting therewith should, from the date of connection and until said Greenville Crest should be incorporated in the city limits of Dallas, pay the regular rental charges for sewer service by the city to suburban lots. * * *
As the Greenland Hills addition had just recently been granted permission to make a similar connection, the implication in our opinion was justified that the terms prescribed for the Greenville Crest connection, one of which was that all houses and buildings connected should, from the date of such connection, pay the regular rental charges for sewer service by the city to suburban lots, was also one of the conditions on which Greenland Hills was permitted to make connection. But, aside from this, and as fully justifying this conclusion, is the unchallenged statement in the brief of appellants, at page 80, as follows:
“All the' proof shows that both (the sewer mains of both of these additions) were laid under expert supervision by the same engineers in charge for both plaintiff and defendant, under the eye of the city engineers, in accordance with the standard requirements of the city, and as such, were finally approved by the city engineering authorities when the additions passed into the city of Dallas, and that prior thereto the city charged each lot owner a regular rental for sewer service.”
Rule 31, for briefing, applicable to Courts of Civil Appeals, among others, has this provision:
“If the statement from the record thus made is not distinctly challenged by the opposing party, it may be accepted by the court as correct.”
As this statement was not challenged by appellee, and in our opinion was an authorized inference from the agreement made in open .court above quoted, we adhere to the correctness of the conclusion announced.
3. Appellee makes this further criticism of the court’s opinion, to wit:
“Because the court erred in finding that the reservation in the title to the sewer system built by the appellee took from the city control and supervision of such sewer system. This finding by the court is not supported by any testimony in the record, and such a conclusion is unjustified by any facts in the record.”
The conclusion objected to is one of law rather than of fact. If, as contended by appellee, title to the sewer system remained in it after the dedication and after it parted with title to all lots in the addition, as such owner it could grant to whomsoever it pleased the privilege of making connections and otherwise exercise acts of ownership and control, which, if done, would necessarily interfere with the city’s control. It must be borne in mind that, when these systems were connected with the sewer system of the city, it was contemplated by all parties that ultimately the additions would become a part of the city, and that it would then become the owner of the sewer mains, which is now the case, and, with this in view, the city. permitted connections upon the conditions mentioned. If, after all this, it be true that appellee remained the owner of the system, the conclusion is inescapable that the exertion of its ownership in the various ways that an owner could exert the same would necessarily interfere with the proper exercise of - authority by the city in controlling, supervising, and policing the sewer system.
We have carefully considered all grounds for rehearing urged by appellee, and, finding no reason to disturb our decision, the motion is overruled.