Court Opinion

ID: 9654754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:49:34.303793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:13.132112
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Wilson,
joined by Justice Sharp, dissenting.
I agree with the law announced in the majority opinion, but respectfully dissent from the judgment. The case should be remanded for a full development of the facts in justice to the people of that neighborhood who are the real beneficiaries of the dedication. The question of whether streets built over land dedicated to park purposes work a forfeiture of the dedication is one of fact. The question here is whether the streets hinder the development of the area as a park even though the city’s purposes in putting them in may have been to connect up the street stystem.
In El Paso Union Passenger Depot Co. v. Look, 228 S. W. *17917, the court made it plain that one of the reasons for prohibiting the construction of the sidewalk in that case was that it did not in any way further the use of the land as a park. On the contrary, the only purpose and effect was to open adjacent property for business purposes. The construction of this sidewalk was a compromise worked out in the settlement of a lawsuit between the city and the owners of adjacent property. The court said:
“* * * The case appears to be one where the city made use of the park property to adjust its lawsuit, resulting in an appropriation of a part of the park property for the benefit of the defendant Look. The laying of the walk under such circumstances was a diversion of the property from park purposes, as held by the Court of Civil Appeals.”
This has been so interpreted in an A.L.R. annotation (18 A.L.R. 1249).
“It was held in Look v. El Paso Union Pass. Depot Co. (1921) —Tex. Com. App. — , 228 S. W. 917, that while to lay sidewalks through and around parks is not necessarily a diversion of that part of the park so used to other than park purposes, where the purpose on the part of a city, in laying a sidewalk along the outside of a park, is to secure an adjustment of its lawsuit with a private individual in reference to the title of land adjoining the park, and the laying of such sidewalk results in an appropriation of a part of the park property for the benefit of a private party, the laying of the walk, under such circumstances, is a diversion of the property from park purposes.”
The fact that the city has not as yet developed the property for park purposes is immaterial since there was no time limitation placed upon the city in which to accept the dedication.
There is no proof upon the question of whether or not the property, including the present streets, is susceptible to development for park purposes. The record contains no testimony upon the adaptability of this land to park purposes or the need for a park at that place from any employee of the park department, engineer, member of the Park Board, or other specialist in this field. This particular land lies behind river levees in a congested part of the city inhabited principally by low income citizens. Since it is potentially a slum area, and since this is a public question I would remand in the interest of justice for further factual development before allowing the original dedicator’s *18purpose to be defeated by the city’s unauthorized action in using part of the land for streets.
Associate Justice Sharp joins in this opinion.
Opinion delivered December 10, 1952.
Rehearing overruled January 14, 1953.