Court Opinion

ID: 9831457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:07:18.236769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.969023
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our origing.1 opinion we said:
“We also dgree with Mm [appellant] that the district court, under the facts shown, had no authority to adjudge the road had been established 60 feet wide or to reduce the road from 80 feet wide, as fixed by the commissioners’ court, to a -road of 60 feet in width; but we find that the. district court made no attempt by its decree to establish a road of any width.”
The statement as made is. misleading, and does not correctly state the holding we intended to make. What we intended to say and now say, in lieu of the above quotation, is that we agree with appellant that the district court had ho authority to establish a road of any class originally, or by reducing the width of one erroneously attempted to be laid out of a greater width than allowed by law, but that the district court did have authority, in passing upon the application for injunction, to determine and decide that the commissioners’ court had no authority to establish a road 80 feet wide, but that it did have authority to legally establish a road of 60 feet in width, and that it had done so, that this was all the court decided.
With this statement, the motion of appellant for a rehearing is overruled.