Court Opinion

ID: 9767686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:23:45.467565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.402511
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Griffin
dissenting.
I agree with the majority opinion insofar as it holds that there is a title dispute which involves the land below the 75-foot contour line. This land was never included in the condemnation proceedings. The pleadings of District in the condemnation cause filed with the County Judge made no mention of any rights *250in' and to the land below the 75-foot contour line. A proper description of the land sought to be condemned is essential for jurisdiction to condemn to attach. The land below the 75-foot contour line not being described in the statement filed with the County Judge, there was no jurisdiction in the condemnation commissioners nor in the County Court on appeal to make any orders with regard thereto. Miers v. Housing Authority of City of Dallas, 1954, 153 Texas 236, 266 S.W. 2d 842; 16 Texas Jur. 662, Sec. 323. Only the District Court has jurisdiction to try a title dispute.
I could agree with the holding of the majority as to the land between the 75 and 94-foot contour lines except for the fact that the District had taken actual possession of all of this land up to the 88-foot contour line at the time of trial. The Wesley Seale Dam had been completed and its gates closed. By this action the land belonging to the Cartwrights had been flooded up to the 88-foot contour line. District had thus put it beyond its power to return the land to the Cartwrights when it sought to dismiss its County Court condemnation.
As I understand the law, a condemning authority may dismiss, or abandon its condemnation proceedings at any time before the title has passed, provided it returns the land sought to be condemned to the condemnee. This puts all parties in the same position they occupied at the time the condemnation proceedings were begun. I believe this to be the general rule of lav/.
The case of Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Kirby, Texas Civ. App., 1912, 150 S.W. 228, wr. ref. discusses the right of condemnor to dismiss his action. In that case the Railway Co. instituted condemnation proceedings in county court. A hearing was had and an award made. Railway Co. paid in to the county clerk double the amount of the award and went into possession of the property souerht to be condemned and constructed its roadway thereon. The condemnation proceeded in its regular course and the case twice reached the Court of Civil Appeals and each time was sent back to the county court for action. After the second reversal, Railway Co. filed its motion to dismiss the condemnation proceeding on the ground it had changed its line and no longer needed the land sought to be condemned. The County Court heard such motion to dismiss and granted same insofar as condemnors sought to condemn the property, but left in the County Court the landowner’s action for damages on account of the taking and appropriation of his property. The County Court proceeded to judgment against the *251Railway Co. and had execution issued to collect the judgment. The Railway Co. then filed the present suit seeking an injunction to prevent the collection of the judgment. Its grounds for asking for the injunction were that the judgment was void because the County Court lost its jurisdiction when his motion to dismiss was sustained; and other grounds not material to an inquiry. On a hearing in the District Court the injunction was refused. On appeal the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, saying:
“Appellant having in said suit instituted a proceeding to condemn the right of way over appellee’s land, and taken possession of said right of way thereunder and proceeded to construct its roadbed across appellee’s said land, and appellee having filed his amended answer, specifically pleading his damages because of said condemnation and appropriation of his said land before the order had, granting appellant’s motion to dismiss its condemnation suit, we are of the opinion that appellant could not, by thus taking a voluntary nonsuit, upon this state of the record, deprive appellee of his right to be heard in said court and in said suit for his damage; and that the court, notwithstanding said nonsuit granted, retained jurisdiction to hear and determine the question of said damage, irrespective of the amount of the same. Howard v. McKenzie, 54 Texas 189; Cunningham v. Wheatly, 21 Texas 184; Williams v. Williams, 38 S.W. 261; Cyc. vol. 15, pp. 942, 943; Revised Statutes, Art. 4471, as amended by the act of 1899, p. 105, Sayles’ Supp. sudb. 3, n. 477; City of El Paso v. Coffin, 40 Texas Civ. App., 54, 88 S.W. 502; G. ,C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Tacquard, 3 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. Sec. 141.”
This Court in the case of Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation Dist. v. Allen (141 Texas 208, 171 S.W. 2d 842) cited the Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas case as authority for the proposition that the right to abandon the purpose of taking may be lost by taking possession of the property. In the Allen case the Reclamation District sough to abandon its condemnation proceeding after an award by the commissioners had been made and possession of the land taken by depositing the amount of the award with the county clerk as provided in Article 3268, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes. In addition, the Reclamation District had filed a new petition for condemnation of the same land before the judge of the same county court as the first proceeding. The landowner filed suit in District Court to prevent the hearing of the second condemnation suit. This Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals restraining the Reclamation District from pro*252ceeding in the second suit until the first condemnation suit was finally disposed of. The court said that the District had proceeded so far with the first condemnation suit that it would be manifestly unjust and prejudicial to condemnee to permit the condemnor to dismiss or abandon its suit over the condemnee’s protest. The court further said:
“We do not discuss the authorities relating to the right to abandon a condemnation proceeding, that is, to abandon the project or the purpose of taking the property, for here there is no intention to abandon the proceeding in that sense. The purpose is to dismiss the first suit and to take the same property and other property in a second proceeding. It may be observed, however, that the right to abandon the project or to abandon the purpose of taking the property may be lost by taking possession of the property. Kansas City M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, Texas Civ. App., 150 S.W. 228, application for writ of error refused; Leonard v. Small, Texas Civ. App., 28 S.W. 2d 826, application for writ of error refused; Nevada & M. R. Co. v. Le Lissa, 130 Mo. 125, 15 S.W. 368; Guaranty Loan & Trust Co. v. Helena Improvement District, 148 Ark. 56, 228 S.W. 1045; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. City of Ashville, 4 Cir., 85 F. 2d 966; note 121 A.L.R. 12, 72-76.” (Emphasis added).
The case of South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Bobotes, (1936) 180 S.C. 183, 185 S.E. 165, 121 A.L.R. 1, together with the exhaustive annotation in 121 A.L.R. on page 12, thoroughly discusses the cases dealing with the right of the condemnor to dismiss or abandon his proceedings. In that case it is said:
"* * * There is a well-defined point of time or stage of the proceedings after which the right to abandon is lost. The vesting of the owner’s right to compensation is considered the pivotal fact which determines the incidence of that stage of the proceedings, and such vesting of the right to compensation is cow-current with the taking of the property becomings complete. The vesting of the right to compensation and the completed taking are reciprocal and correlative, though the latter determines the former. The taking is said to become complete, in so far as it perfects the right to compensation, in either of two cases: First, from an actual viewpoint, that is, upon physical entry and appropriation of the property by the condemnor to the contemplated public use; second, from a procedural standpoint, that is, that particular stage of the proceedings at which ownership of the property is divested and transferred to the condemning party.” (Emphasis added.)
*253One page 16, Id, the general rule as to when an abandonment may be made is stated to be “that in the absence of a statute fixing the time within which a discontinuance may be had, an eminent domain proceeding may be discontinued at any time before the rights of the parties have become reciprocally vested * * Further, on page 19, idem, it is stated that the cases may be divided into two groups, “one holding that by confirmation of the award the rights of the parties are vested and the abandonment is then precluded, and the other holding that the rights of the parties are not vested until the award has been paid or secured, or the land is occupied, and that until such time the proceedings can be abandoned.” (Emphasis added.)
The Texas Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 17, prohibits the taking of property without adequate compensation, unless by consent; and further provides that when taken, except by the State, such compensation shall be first made or secured by a deposit of money. To hold with the majority is to permit a condemnor to take possession of property and use it without complying with the Constitutional provision. It permits use of property and then the payment of its value long after the taking and use and only at the end of long drawnout litigation. See also 16 Texas Jur. 772, Sec. 431, et seq.; 6 Nichols On Eminent Domain, pp. 187-190, Sec. 26.42; Id., p. 204, Sec. 26.46; 30 C.J.S. 8, Sec. 335, b.
The majority seeks to avoid the effect of the Allen and Thompson cases (Thompson v. Janes, 1952, 151 Texas 495, 251 S.W. 2d 953) by saying that in each of these cases possession of the property was gained by legal, lawful means — in the Allen case by making the deposit after there had been a legal award, and in the Thompson case by consent. The majority say in such cases the condemnor may not dismiss or abandon his proceedings without restoring possession. They say in the case at bar the District did not gain possession legally, and are trespassers as to the land above the 85-foot contour, and therefore they do not have to restore possession as a prerequisite to a dismissal or abandonment. This reasoning puts a premium on unlawful and illegal entries into another’s premises and encourages condemning authorities to take possession of condemnee’s property illegally and unlawfully if the condemnor wants to preserve his right to dismiss, abandon, or change tribunals. With this reasoning I cannot agree.
There is one other point on which I am in disagreement with *254the majority and that is that a title dispute exists as to the land above the 75-foot contour line. When the District filed its condemnation proceeding in County Court and made no mentían of any rights, claims or easements it maght have above the 75-foot contour line, it admitted the Cartwrights’ title to such land, and cannot be heard to dispute such title in the condemnation proceedings. I readily agree that this admission is only binding so long as the condemnation proceedings remain in the County Court. The District must remain in the County Court and cannot dismiss these proceedings since it has possession of the Cartwright’s land and is unable to restore the status quo as it existed prior to filing the County Court proceedings.
By filing its petition of condemnation in the County Court seeking condemnation of the land between the 75 and 94-foot contour lines without mentioning or claiming any rights under the 1927 easement, the District admitted the title of the Cart-wrights to all the land sought to be condemned. Houston North Shore Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 1936, 128 Texas 248, 98 S.W. 2d 786, 108 A.L.R. 1508.
The Tyrrell ease came to this court on certified question. The Railway Company filed its petition for condemnation of certain land in the County Court-at-Law of Harris County, Texas. Railway Company asked for condemnation of sufficient land for their right-of-way and joined all claimants to any right or title in this strip of land. It further alleged that it was operating trains over the right-of-way sought to be condemned by virtue of certain right-of-way deeds theretofore given it by some of those claiming to own rights in the right-of-way used: Its pleadings alleged that the right-of-way easement contained a condition subsequent; that the Railway Company had complied with every requirement contained in the deed and it still owned the easement. Certain claimants alleged the Railway Company had violated the conditions subsequent and therefore Railway Company had lost its title to the right-of-way in favor of these claimants.
Commissioners were appointed and a hearing had. The condemnee claimants objected to the proceeding on the ground that under the Railway Company’s pleadings there was no jurisdiction to proceed before the commissioners. The hearing proceeded to an award, and condemnees appealed to the County Court-at-Law. A hearing was had in that Court and much evidence was heard. The condemnees were still insisting on their objection to the jurisdiction to hear the condemnation proceed*255ing. At the end of the hearing the trial court ordered that condemnors take nothing and dismissed the cause “for the reason that there was a failure to prove jurisdictional facts.” On appeal the Court of Civil Appeals certified a question as to the correctness of the trial court’s ruling that it did not have jurisdiction. Judge Smedley, in an opinion adopted as the opinion of the Supreme Court, answered that the trial court had erred in failing to take jurisdiction.
One of the contentions of condemnees was that Railway Company, in its pleadings regarding its easement under the deed, was claiming a title to the land and therefore could not condemn under the condemnation statutes. The Court said:
“The narrowed question is: Do the allegations and proof of appellants’ present assertion of title to the easement created by the deed operate as a bar to their acquisition of an unconditional easement by condemnation? ‘A party cannot proceed to condemn land as the property of another and then in that same proceeding set up a paramount right or title in itself either by prescription, dedication or otherwise.’ Lewis’ Eminent Domain (3rd Ed.) Sec. 441„ vol. 2, p. 1137. If the petitioner in condemnation claims the fee title to the property, his petition should be dismissed. Colorado M. Railway Company v. Croman, 16 Colo. 381, 27 p. 256. ‘Unless title in the condemnee is admitted the county court is without jurisdiction.’ McInnis v. Brown County Water Improvement District No. 1 (Texas Civ. App.) 41 S.W. 2d 741, 744 (application for writ of error refused). The reasons for the foregoing general rules are: That there is irreconcilable inconsistency between an allegation by the condemnor of the entire title, or a paramount title, in. himself, and the taking of the property of another by the proceeding; that condemnation rests upon necessity, and there can be no necessity to acquire what one already owns; and that the county court is without jurisdiction to try title to real property. * * *”
In discussing the allegations of Railway Company regarding its existing easement under the deed, this Court said, “this allegation is in effect a representation or admission by appellants [Railway Company] that in the trial of the condemnation proceeding the titles of the respective parties shall be regarded and treated as if the title under the deed were terminated by the breach of its conditions at the time of the trial.” Bot. 2nd. col., p. 794. This Court upheld the right of the Railway Company to condemn in the County Court in spite of the pleadings of title under the deed.
*256It is such a well recognized rule of law that a condemnor, by filing his petition in County Court, recognizes the title to the property to be vested in condemnee, and condemnor cannot attack or question condemnee’s title, that I shall cite no additional authorities, nor write further on this phase.
To summarize my position: District cannot dismiss its proceedings in County Court to condemn the land between the 75 and 94-foot contour lines because it has taken possession of said land, still holds posession, and cannot return same to the Cartwrights. Being required to proceed with its condemnation of these lands in the County Court, District cannot be heard to dispute Cartwright’s title, and therefore no title dispute can arise regarding the land between the 75 and 94-foot contour line. This being true, the District should be required to continue with its condemnation of the property between the 75 and 94-foot contour line in the County Court and its petition in District Court covering this land should be dismissed. As to the land below the 75-foot contour line there can be, and is, a title dispute which can only be determined in the District Court and such condemnation as may be necessary can also be had in that same District Court suit, under the provisions of Art. 3269, Vernon’s Ann. Texas Civ. Stats.
Opinion delivered November 11, 1959.