Court Opinion

ID: 9681888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:00:32.22722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.358927
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Wilson
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Here there is no issue of title between the respondent Huber and the city for the city admits title in Huber. There are other defendants in the condemnation suit with whom Huber may make an issue of title, but they are not parties to the district cturt proceeding. There can be no issue of possession. The only possible issue is value.
Huber claims that he was not served with notice. The county court has general jurisdiction of a condemnation proceeding and is equipped to determine any question about service. What is there to be gained by allowing this one procedural aspect of a controversy over value to be determined in a separate court? It cannot but contribute to the “law’s delay” and will unnecessarily complicate condemnation proceedings. The public interest in the completion of public improvements within a reasonable time requires a simple, effective, and expeditious condemnation procedure. It should not be hampered by allowing an issue of service to be determined in a parallel title suit in the district court while the condemnation suit is pending untried in the county court. This situation should be governed by Cleveland v. Ward, 116 Texas 1, 285 S.W. 1063. We should hold that when the county court acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter it had the duty to determine every question in that condemnation case including those involving service. A trial is complicated enough without splitting it between two courts. The injunction should issue for the purpose of keeping this condemnation suit intact.
Opinion delivered December 2, 1953.
Rehearing overruled January 13, 1954.