Court Opinion

ID: 9830294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:04:48.159498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:18.240895
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The petition filed by the property owners for paving the street referred to in our original opinion was as follows:
“Ft. Worth, Texas, March 27, 1910.
“To the Honorable Mayor and Board of Commissioners of the City Of Ft. Worth:
“The undersigned property owners along 8th Ave., between Weatherbee and Morgan Sts. in the city of Ft. Worth, hereby petition your honorable body to order the pavement of 8th Ave., between the above-mentioned streets, with bitulithic pavement, and each of us do hereby agree to pay for the pavement of one-half the street in front of our respective property. We request that this portion of 8th Ave. be made uniform in width with that portion of 8th Ave. immediately north of Weatherbee street.
“I. C. Chase, 80 ft.
“J. M. Long, 80 ft.
“J. I. Turner, 50 ft.
“W. H. Word, 100 ft.
“Geo. W. Armstrong, 63 ft.
“F. E. Whitsell, 100 ft.
“L. M. Burkhart, 100 ft.
“I. N. McCrary, 65 ft.”
That part of the street that was paved was 400 feet on one side and 360 feet on the other, or a total of 760 feet counting the frontage on both sides. The number of front feet owned by the signers of the petition and situated partly on one side of the street and partly on the other aggregated 638 feet, or 83 per cent, of the entire both sides frontage of the paved part. The agreement of each owner to pay one-half of the cost of the entire pavement in front of his property was an agreement to pay for the paving to the middle of the street, and such agreement by the owners on both sides covered the whole. Furthermore, the agreement to pay the cost of paving would include the cost of excavations, grading, and other necessary incidents to the work of the paving. The designation by the petitioners of the kind of paving desired as “bitulithic” pavement was in strict compliance with section 14, c. 14, of the city charter. With these additional findings of fact, the motion of appellee for further findings and for a rehearing are both overruled.