Court Opinion

ID: 9830401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:10:38.465302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:21.129550
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant strongly objects to the summation made in our original opinion of the point which is before us for decision. It strongly insists that under our holding in Isaac v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 543, it could not be held that the offer to sell the property for $7000, made, by appellees to City’s agent Nisbet, was made during the negotiations instituted by the City to acquire the land because the City had never passed any ordinance, resolution or motion directing the acquisition of the land by the City for a public purpose. And in that connection appellant cites additionally the case of Kaufman v. Pittsburgh, C.& W. R. Co., 210 Pa. 440, 60 A. 2.
We refrained in the original opinion from discussing the obvious advantage which a corporation, having the power of condemnation, has in acquiring land from an owner, over other prospective purchasers. An offer which is made to a prospective purchaser, which does not have the power of condemnation, can be withdrawn by the offerer because the offerer considers it too low without any possible prejudice to the offerer. It was certainly not intended by the condemnation law to invest a corporation, or arm of the State having power of eminent domain, with the power to obtain a-n offer of sale to be used to the prejudice of a land owner in beating down the price. The offer made by appellees to 'sell the property to the City for $7000 was not an offer made by them to sell the property to some third party. It was an offer to sell the property to the City to be used for a public purpose, one for which the City subsequently condemned it. It was withdrawn before acted on. We cannot hold that it was independent of the condemnation proceedings which were instituted when 'Said offer was withdrawn. The -protection which the law has erected for the benefit of the citizen as against the exercise of the power of condemnation should be liberally construed. Stated otherwise, the power of eminent domain must be strictly construed against those corporations and arms of the State vested therewith. Our holding in this case is not contrary to our holding in Isaac v. City of Houston, supra. So far as we understand the evidence, the fact that appellees withdrew their offer of $7000 resxdt-ed in the condemnation proceedings.
The motion for rehearing is refused.