Court Opinion

ID: 9831921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:28:54.366577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:39.454558
License: Public Domain

On Motion for a Rehearing.
The principles announced in the case of Wooters v. City of Crockett, in which a writ of error was denied by our Supreme Court, we think apply to and control this case. The fact is clearly established that the city of Dal-ias in the instant case is not undertaking to close any portion of Lamar street to confer a private benefit, but that, on the contrary, it is acting in behalf of the public welfare. The course of the street near appellant’s property merely is to be changed. This is to be done in the pursuit of a general scheme of improvement ’inaugurated by the city for the benefit of the public and within the authority granted the city by the Legislature.
The proposition relied upon by appellant, in effect, is that, though not an abutting owner, it has actual title in the way of appurtenance to every street and highway embraced in the original plat of a quality which denies the city of Dallas the right to change the course of any street in any portion of the original plat without first acquiring appellant’s right by purchase or condemnation proceeding. A tract of land of large area in this present time of rapid growth of cities might be platted with dedicated streets and alleys and sold in small lots so as to pass the title to thousands of owners, some .living at comparatively great distances from others. If appellant’s proposition were accepted and applied, then, in altering the course of any one of such streets, the municipality would be confronted with condemnation proceedings against all such owners, however numerous. In such circumstances, it seems unreasonable to us that before the municipality, which had assumed the control and maintenance of all such streets, could alter the course of a single one of them, it should first be subjected to the burden of condemnation proceedings against all such owners, including those however so far removed.
Our view is expressed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the ICinnedr Mfg. Co. Case in the following language:
We see no good reason for holding, as seems to be contended, that the rule is different as to the streets and alleys of an addition to the plat of a city; that in such case there is an implied covenant that the streets and alleys indicated on the plat are to remain open for public use, and that each owner of a lot in the addition may insist on this covenant. In our view, the streets and alleys of every addition to a city become a part of its general system of public ways, over which the city, through its council and other agents, has the same control that it has over each and every part of the system; and that the rights of lot owners in the addition to the use of the streets and alleys indicated on the recorded plat are the same, but not greater, than are the rights of any lot owner upon a street or alley.”
Tlie case of Bowers v. Machir (Tex. Civ. App.) 191 S. W. 758, insistently relied upon by appellant as controlling the instant case, in our view is not in point. These are the.facts of that case:
“On May 25, 1904, J. A. Lee, who was the-owner of block 8, of the Field-Welsh addition to the city of Fort Worth, subdivided and platted said block into lots, streets, and alleys, a plat of which subdivision was duly recorded in' the deed records of Tarrant county. Following is a copy of said plat:

“The following is the written declaration of Lee with reference to the plat, which was filed for record as a part of the plat: ‘Know all men by these presents that I, J. A. Lee, the owner of block No. 8 of the Field-Welsh. addition to the city of. Fort Worth, Tar-rant county, Texas, do hereby adopt the foregoing plan for subdividing same, to be known as “Lee’s subdivision of block No. 8 of the Field-Welsh addition” to the city of Fort Worth, Texas, and do hereby dedicate to the use of the public the streets and alleys as shown thereon, except that part of the alley *825marked “Reserved” lying west of lots 1 to 8. I also reserve to myself the right to. use the 'dirt from Lake street that is cut thereon when said street is graded. I reserve to myself the right tp cross the streets and alleys or to run on said streets or alleys shown on said plat with water pipes from the well now located on lot 1.’
“Thereafter, on January 11,1906, Lee sold to J. O. McKain lots 25 and 26 shown in the plat, said lots being described by reference to the recorded plat. On June 10, 1907, McKain and wife sold the lots to Hattie L. Manning, who, on April 7,1909, sold the same to A. L. Bowers. In each of the two deeds last mentioned the property was described in the same manner and with reference to the same- plat, and both of those deeds were duly recorded in the record of deeds of Tarrant county. On December 5, 1911, Miss Erna E. List purchased from the heirs of J. A. Lee, deceased, lot 34 shown in said plat, and in 1914 Mrs. Pearl Machir purchased lot 35 from the same heirs. During the summer of 1915, the board of commissioners of the city of Port Worth passed the following ordinance:
“ ‘Be it ordained by the board of commissioners of the city of Port Worth:
“ ‘Section 1. That a 20-foot alley fronting on South Lake street in block 1000, and lying between lot 34 and lot 35 in block 8 of J. A. Lee’s subdivision of Pield-Welsh addition to the city of Port Worth, be and the same is hereby ordered closed and the right to the use of said alley is hereby granted and vested one-half to the owner of lot 34 and one-half to the owner of lot 35, so that the owners of said property will each control and own up to a line drawn through the center of said alley.
“ ‘That this ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.’
“On July 1, 1915, soon after the passage of said ordinance, O. C. Machir, husband of Mrs. Pearl Machir, and Miss Erna E. List caused a fence to be erected across the east end of the 20-foot alley described in the city ordinance, and also put in a sidewalk and curbing across the west end of the alley, and on the east line of Lake street, and at that time Miss List was the owner of lot 34 and Mrs. Pearl Machir the owner of lot 35. Later, Miss List sold lot 34 to her mother, Mrs. Alice M. List. On June 13, 1916, A. L. Bowers, as the owner of lots 25 and 26, joined by his tenant, O. M. Harris, instituted this suit in the district court against O. O. Machir, Miss Erna List, and Mrs. Alice M. List, to require the removal of the obstructions so placed across the two ends of the 20-foot alley mentioned above and to restrain any further obstruction of the same. In connection with such permanent relief, plaintiff also prayed for a temporary writ of injunction for such relief pending the suit. On June 13, 1916, the application for the temporary writ was heard and denied by the district judge, such action on his part being predicated upon the following findings of fact, and conclusions of law:
“ ‘(1) The passway in question was dedicated to the public on May 25, 1904, by J. A. Lee by making and recording the plat as alleged by the plaintiffs;, and the same has been continuously used by the public as a passway until it was closed by defendants Machir and Erna List, about July 1, 1915.
“‘(2) Plaintiffs and defendants all hold, under the said J. A. Lee as common source of title, as alleged by plaintiffs, and defendants each had notice and knowledge of the public character of the passway at the time they respectively acquired their titles to the adjacent lots. '
“ ‘(3) Defendant Erna List had sold lot 34 to her mother, Alice M. List, prior to ■ the filing of this suit, but after same had been closed, and had delivered possession thereof to her.
“ ‘(4) Upon a petition of defendants and others, of which plaintiffs had no notice, the city commission of the city of Fort Worth, a few days prior to said closing, enacted an ordinance closing said passway, and afterwards upon petition of plaintiffs and others refused to repeal said ordinance.’ ”
The alley was closed by Mrs. Machir and Miss List. The facts disclose that the interests of the public were in no way involved in the closing of the alley, and that it was closed altogether for the private benefit of the owners of adjacent property. The facts further disclose, and the Court of Civil Appeals in the opinion so viewed 'them, that Bowers’ access to the rear of his lots under the circumstances which existed through a 10-foot alley adjacent thereto would be practically destroyed by the closing of the alley which the city of Port Worth áttempted to grant to Mrs. Machir and Miss List. The situation was such as in effect to disclose that Bowers was entitled to a way of necessity through the alley, and his position was viewed in the case as being analogous to that of an abutting property owner. The question of changing the course of a public thoroughfare by the municipality purely for the public benefit without affecting abutting property owners was not involved in the case. If the proposed change in the course of the street results in any peculiar damage to appellant, then, as stated in our original opinion, it has recourse to a suit for damages. The rights accorded to litigants in eases cited, by appellant from other jurisdictions, under the facts of those cases, may be distinguished from the claims asserted in behalf of appellant. However, since the Supreme Court of this state has approved the view that one who is not an abutting owner has no right to enjoin a municipal government from changing the course of a street for the public benefit, we regard as superfluous any further consideration of cases from other jurisdictions.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.