Court Opinion

ID: 9829723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:33:40.083194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.781048
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our former opinion rendered in this case we held that commissioners’ courts of this state, at the time the road involved herein was laid out, had no power to condemn, in any instance, a right of way for a public road more than sixty feet in width. We wore in error in making any such holding. It appears that in 1927 the Legislature (chapter 178, § 1 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 6704]) amended article 6704 of the Revised Statutes of 1925 by substituting the word “eighty” for the word “sixty” in subdivision 1 thereof, which gave commissioners’ courts the right to condemn a right of way for county roads not to exceed eighty feet in width. That act was again amended in 1929 (chapter 197, § 1 [Vernon’s Ann. Oiv. St. art. 6704]). But the amendment of 1927 was in force when the road here involved was laid out and constructed. In passing upon the powers of commissioners’ courts with respect to such matters, we overlooked the act of 1927. To that extent the appellees’ motion for rehearing is granted and that part of our opinion which declares that commissioners’ courts of this state, .at the time the road ip question was laid out, had no power to condemn, in any instance, a right of way for a public road in excess of sixty feet, is withdrawn.
On all other matters we incline to the views, heretofore expressed by us and, with the exception above noted, the motion for rehearing is overruled.