Court Opinion

ID: 9828549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:29:07.62006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:50.327413
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellees have filed herein a motion for rehearing, a supplement thereto and a written argument in support thereof. However, upon rehearing, no authorities have been cited and no arguments have been advanced which were not considered by us in making our original disposition of this appeal.
In view of our construction of the dedication appearing upon the Edinburg Town-site Company map, the “location cases” cited by appellees are hardly in point. These cases are: Denver and Rio Grande Railway Co. v. Alling, 99 U.S. 463, 25 L.Ed. 438; Sioux City & D. M. R. Co. v. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co., C.C., 27 F. 770; Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 6 Cir., 131 F. 657; and Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Deepwater Ry. Co., 57 W.Va. 641, 50 S.E. 890.
Laying aside all questions relating to statutory construction, these cases support the general proposition that the railroad corporation “which first defines and makes its route and adopts the same for its permanent location by authoritative corporate action is entitled to priority.” 18 Am. Jur. 721, § 95. However, location (if we may consider the application to the Commissioners’ Court as such) does not carry with it the right to occupy the land. Mere location gives rise" to an incipient right only, which if perfected into a right of occupancy must be followed with dispatch by further action relating to the acquisition of the property or an easement therein, either by purchase or the institution of condemnation proceedings.
Here, in legal contemplation, appellees have done no more than apply for and re*125ceive a permit from the Commissioners’ Court. No effect' with reference to the perfection of a right can be given to ap-pellees’ actions in making a physical entry upon the property and occupying the premises in whole or in part. Such entry and occupancy was and is proscribed by the Constitution of this State, and consequently appellees occupy the position of trespassers upon the property.
Under these circumstances, the superior right is with appellant, which has constructed its tracks upon lands owned by it and crossed the roadway under legislative authorization.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled.