Court Opinion

ID: 9829479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:20:50.783303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:01.504350
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for a rehearing appel-lees contend that the admission on the part of the highway commission, to the effect that the reason for selecting the new location of the highway in question was that the Federal Bureau of Roads would not approve any other location, was sufficient to establish the fact that the highway commission had delegated its power to locate state highways to the Federal Bureau of Roads.
We do not agree with this contention. The highway commission properly exercised its discretion when it selected a location on which the Federal Bureau of Roads was willing to extend federal aid. Singeltary v. Heathman (Tex. Civ. App.) 300 S. W. 242, affirmed by the Commission of Appeals in 12 S.W.(2d) 150.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.