Court Opinion

ID: 9829779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:36:58.843425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:06.125709
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] This motion has been duly considered, and our conclusion is that it should be overruled. It is true, as stated in the motion, that appellee in the court bélow and in this court made the contention that its condemnation proceeding was authorized by our general statutory law, relating to the subject of condemnation by cities and towns; and, inasmuch as counsel for appellee is now pressing that contention, our reasons for overruling it will be briefly stated.
The law referred to is incorporated in articles 1003, 1004, and 1005 of the Revised Statutes of 1911. That law authorizes incorporated cities and towns to condemn private property for the following, and no other, purposes: (1) In order to open, change, or widen streets, avenues, or alleys; (2) for the construction of water mains, or supply reservoirs or standpipes for waterworks or ■sewers; (3) for the purpose of establishing thereon hospitals or pesthouses; and (4) for the purpose of constructing or maintaining ■sewer plants or systems. The condemnation proceeding in this case was instituted for .and resulted in a judgment securing to the city of New Braunfels the right to back the water from its proposed dam over two strips ■of land belonging to appellant along the water line on each side of the Comal river. It is true that the city contended, and perhaps correctly, that it was necessary to thus flood appellant’s land in order to construct and maintain the proposed water and light plant for the city; but the statute now under consideration does not authorize the condemnation of any property for the purpose of establishing a light plant, and does not authorize condemnation of private property for use in connection with a water plant, except for the construction of water mains, supply reservoirs or standpipes. The city of New Braunfels was not seeking to condemn appellant’s property for use for either of those purposes; and therefore the provisions of the general statute relating to the subject of condemnation do not sustain the contention of appellee’s counsel.
Motion overruled.