Court Opinion

ID: 9831473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:08:04.60322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.222448
License: Public Domain

On Motion' for Rehearing.
[2] Appellee insists that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed for the reason that it apijears that the contract for the right of way of the railway company over appellant’s land was made by a committee of citizens of Menardville, and that it is not shown that they were representing the railway company in such transaction. The fact that the deed was taken to the railway company, and that it constructed its railway across appellant’s land as conveyed in such deed, is sufficient evidence of the agency of such parties, either originally given or by ratification.
Appellee further contends that agency to procure a right of way for a railway company does not imply authority to promise an open crossing over such right of way. In support of this contention it cites Railway Co. v. Garrett, 52 Tex. 133, Railway Co. v. McKinney, 55 Tex. 182, and Railway Co. v. Sweetwater, 104 Tex. 320, 137 S. W. 1120. We think that:
“An open crossing over a railroad right of way is so intimately connected therewith that an agent, to obtain the same, should be presumed to have authority to agree to leave such open crossing as a part of the consideration for such right of way.’’’
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.