*1 REPORTER 162 SOUTHWESTERN appeals. injunction, plaintiff denying an order SCHAFFNER et al. Affirmed. POINDEXTER v. Dallas, Davidson, Texas. Dallas. Nov. R. V. & for F. 29, 1913. On Motion Rehear Pierson, Pierson, House & C. O'Don- lant. ing, 3, Lewelling, nell, Adams, Dwight L. C. G. (§ 1*) 1. Dedication appellees. —Nature. apart setting of land “Dedication” is a statutory for tile either TALBOT, Field, 1895, platted H. T. J. law, or at a common the distinction between being statutory and a common-law dedication is known “Ross Avenue Addition” operates statutory a dedication Tex., filed a oper- grant, while the dedication of said addition office of ates county county. copy Dallas cases, Dedication, [Ed. Note.—For other see Dig. 10-12; 8, Dig. 1.* Cent. Dec. of this is included the statement of §§ Phrases, definitions, facts, Eor other see Words and and it land therefrom that the pp. 7629, 2, 1908-1918; 8, pp. 7630.] vol. vol. in said addition was laid lots, into blocks and Statutory (§ 23*) 2. Dedication alleys designat- Dedica and. certain streets and tion. Among designated ed thereon. statutory To constitute a valid dedication Subsequently was Juliette street. 6f this street was the name street, a land as substantial compliance scriljjd. pre- changed to, with statute in the or at manner least as, Munger avenue, lots in cases, Dedication, [Ed. Note.—For other see addition were sold with reference to said Dig. 55, 56, Dig. Cent. §§ 23.*] map. 3. Dedication (§ 1*) Dedica —Common-daw beyond extends east and west Ross Avenue tion. addition, and houses erected dedications are either implied, being necessary or there it in each as well as houses erected on lots east and west were erected with ref- express, to the which erence to said and a street and fronted be shown some act or course of conduct. railway operated Dedication, [Ed. Note.—For other Dig. S, 10-12; years. §§ 1.*] avenue for a number of Browne owned in the (§ 19*) 4. Dedication Plat. —Dedication There a valid dedication of long by Dallas tract of land 651 feet streets if the owner of tract which wide, about 325 feet which the said platted dition blocks, lots, ad- Ross avenue addition on the north or north- west, boundary referring map. deed avenue as the southern Dedication, [Ed. Note.—For other thereof. At this time there were 35, 37-^7; §§ 19.*] improvements no running through Browne’s or streets Corporations Municipal (§ 759*) Ac August, ceptance-Necessity. he it into with a street common- thereof, parallel the middle owner, so as of a law to less it MuDger avenue, impose obligations caring it, Place,” with and his called un- accepts the dedication. was filed for the office Municipal' [Ed. Note.—For other county, of From said clerk of Dallas Corporations, 1595-1600; §§ that Browne’s said tract of land was laid off into 26 Compliance (§ 19*) 6. Dedication called Haskell Place Statute. street, opened on Haskell There was no him. part which was street as addi- proceeded Thereafter Browne to sell these tion, laid out did not con- where he made and form to the filed, and at the time this suit was required by instituted charter, except 3.§ had sold all of said lots two. He Dedication, sold both sides 37-47; street, among (§ 229*) Vendor and Purchaser Bona adjoins which lot Compliance Fide Dedi Purchaser — in the tier of lots south (cid:127)is of Haskell Place Statute. and, according to Browne’s One who a lot was a attempted tract of a to be*dedicated fronts that street. No. 17 was chargea- grantor to a an addition by Browne, by conveyed warranty sold notice that his not com- ble ply did deed, Vandivort, man to a named dedicating Vandivort, deed, character streets therein. [Ed. Note.—For other see Vendor and Schaffner. John There is evi- Purchaser, effect that dence through proper officer, granted two or Appeal Court, building permits District Dallas Coun- owners of lots in three ty Judge. ; Roberts,- Addition,” recognizing J. C. “Haskell Place right Suit owners to front their E. Poindexter John ways Schaffner and in other which others From intervened. on Haskell *E’or other oases see same and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Indexes *2 v. SCHAFFNER POINDEXTER .to is claimed street. tion of permit Place avenue. nue, Street,” under the that the his said ly stated, that Sehaffner greatly damaged, Place ing other Melam, abutting No. 17 and abuts herein in tervened that interveners things, taxpayers the officeof Frank ers now owned Deed known as ty, Tex., owners Juliette ing lic sum of vided that lots shall and ter of the contrary pellant’s streets cluding ed and from that grant any Appellant irreparable travel, plans permit to said Sixty-Eighth allegations appellant across appeal. duly fronting Records way, sought by Schmitz, After this alleged houses $26,500, hut issued plat before to section property so Appellee prayer erect in the in volume are that B. dedicated to city’s issued to accepted property platted into blocks by them, respectively, abutting on fee alleys said street and on further No. 17 Munger avenue, is laid off contends that since Prater, injury purpose his house brought of Dallas and were a house belonging to worth in the Hon. on his lot fronting be Schaffner’s Avenue simple and that to and Mrs. permit 23d with its lots for order Judicial District city Dallas, and that etc. cause, the on said streets. fronting Sehaffner enjoined permits the appellee, improved J. T. J. 0. day injunction they county; located was filed interveners appellee, to face W. conform to the them; fronting to erect appellant describing on on Brady, a violation É. S. required wherein it Roberts, if he carried are citizens and page 80, certain suit, appellant herein; opposite for the to front on on which street July, 1895, opened of Dallas and restrained to Diamond, lots Haskell Dallas refused use and petition, Sehaffner, having begun ing 17 of Haskell aggregate the his house among Munger would result Sehaffner, Mayfield and a house on on S. R. prosecutes is Court, ap- owned would construc- to cancel said lots front interven- violation was judge Munger said lot Munger appears use, Upon are accord- located prayed designation, accord- denied, accept- brief- Dale, coun- char- T. J. ave- the pub- and out in- be is volved by platted appellant street, county, appellant that, pellees straining ditioned dedication street ed such the should limits as blocks and the streets and lots before in Avenue addition Browne’s Place the shall file with the correct failed to pellant sential tion of ting apart law guishing difference between it and a common- namely, statutory utory law dedication ute tory dedication, the of one erates essary and such acts formed ed. [1] Dedication is [2] [3] conformity appellant injunction prayed purpose to said must implied Elliott, plat injunction street to and filed said had particulars, appellees. the same into lots and thereafter sold the contend acceptance. otherwise undisputed the owner on appellee him from of Dallas order and the lot of was entitled two way two been dedicated of land for the there should of an property Roads and plat, some dedications. acquired, public, right acquired controversy, the said Browne devote classes, as it to constitute a and dedication of the owners of said the lots situated in the Ross that since was not is Sehaffner was the same off to conform to and common-law. undisputed and among we dedications are subdivid and easement to have evidence of the tract of land plat for expressly one grant, defined On the abutting doing; lying use as the land to the agree contrary into lots kinds of express dedications made Streets, page be an appellee that said time dependent divided the fronting “In both manifestation act or this suit. within public use, and that that such the evidence show- injunction re- declares accepting if since Browne must to said dedications former the distin conformity same, and Sehaffner, street, ap- plat, hand, in Dallas course common- prescrib the set accord- express conten- him to statu same right that, plat, stat stat long con- and and nec ap- in- all op es- SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER dedicated, ing grantor, dedication v. safe condition of the pality improve is the sential necessarily and that such acts as it ity acquires formed former acts or such a dedication as will invest duty tect the of. Before this the places scribed. lots, plan claimed the statute be be consistent lots, sells pecially lays on faith of which the lots are er that cording peatedly purchasers and servitudes many others, intent.” covenant, for the value of streets become chasers by conduct from which Court and exhibits with the lots Judge Moore, speaking referring of, of [5] As has been proposes converting Lamar necessary appropriated by it constitutes injuries aas such damages resulting lots, out and establishes a the sale If, streets and asserting rights treating map with control of and represented by ato belong so where the use which the own- and thereunder, repairing therefore, Now, common-law dedication Elliott, burdened laid off and County Clements, Frost, acquire, as Krause v. caused in placed street in a care for the the lots thus sold.” that where the owner of make state, the streets and rights, privileges, easements, of reference in the reasonable use there declarations, represented by the maintenance obligation ground map Roads proper the lots or blocks map implies them, public benefit statutory dedication, the streets. the owner public. duty seen, dedication to the the owner to represented conveyance in an said: or inconsistent with his city the defective appurtenant subject vested municipality accept that he is platted law authority. which a plan however, squares, can be Civ. description town, map “It to their of El reason of dedi charge will public tends to lessen defects make it the owners Streets, obligation App. 371, in such sold, by map, and to the munici shall imposed, well To imply yet municipal Paso, plan, and sells Tex. the ease Supreme be bind in such lots owners; it with had been dedicated to records, Gillean map and es- use or un charge of the it *3 blocks, makes ance public public liable the dedication of the streets of Haskell liable p. which Jordan to be there never town, deed tion such S. city, pro pre pur the southern ac- visions of re- the es 61 and to cared for as such.” or Place addition did of and laid n platted by Place plat charter cepted by including that required reason of the Juliette whatever date for use as whatever date such of land owned on the north or ting reads as ing that we are inclined to think of said off to timony this act be board fails to disclose definitely Dallas was essential to and the lots as to to, appellant by San Antonio v. and whatever evidence an does not N. E. It article authority within the of Dallas than Etaskell Place addition south Haskell of the 57 W. Littler v. act addition. raise conform to the streets of 828; the section above referred to him, front Haskell acceptance, S. off awas much older the issue was a correct north of and follows: “Should then boundary commission of the disclose sought decided. We will that his land was not so ease shall the an pay public highways, The record sent to this Holdane v. Place without the lower hereafter platted, they issue of fact record, comply to conform opened, and shall on the city At Sullivan, need not on this northwest, the charter of said an Browne .and not, of addition, Chenoa, and the streets limits thereof. Ross Avenue city Hunger avenue, charter of the any dispute that event the owners Ross Avenue addition on the same. Section express acceptance time Lincoln, but when article of the determined Trustees, of said streets at file with the 23 Tex. Civ. of any Browne filed shall become same; provided, in Hunger 166 Ill. proof city or such that the tract say, with the long prior the constitut regard use and ac- But the evidence addition for 106 Ill. the lots of into blocks the dedica force, opened by of originally appeal 21 N. Y. be of an a however, and not Hunger whether city City against platted city accept as the nature there court same abut App. city' pro tes ly of of y. SMITH LONG- lant are not questioned. and declarations and homes established. That record lots south thereto mon-law dedication of repealed by dition which Haskell that- against so, map them, whether viding by on addition to charter his addition were case. by selling charter of constitute and purchased prayed for. ence view we take of sion was asserted grantor conform to quired platting and junction firmed. etc., chargeable quired Dallas, views and, having We see no doing user and sense of complied upon' many he was thereof above case, did not observe he, houses have All expressed only judgment the mode and- no such platting city of inconsistent denied purchasing On acts inconsistent acts of of them persons owning property abutting with reference to of Haskell with notice that his quoted, abut the sale of for record The authorities alleys, etc., Motion not good ordinance applicable sufficient persons attempted dedication, and disclose as before of his addition The lots in our of the court below is af- entitled to not made to front so been reason to his land into the trial court. requirements avenue. Not deal which must be taken would be avenue and case, his made it original proprietor manner of of his front built Browne to constitute Place street not passed does Rehearing. was with an under original opinion The charter as to plats stated, therewith, motion for a re- 472.*] doing his former having asserting depart avenue south of his land not superseded grantor, cited with reference him obligatory up- if not all of facts of persons of land into estopped unimportant 1907 or lots, streets, *4 having conform to regulations Avenue ad- so. injunction Corpus, delineated filing addition; does'not done owners, 1913, filing it was lots of he ac In the and is illegal provi- refer- done who acts not. the for ac in so, reads as follows: “That whenever the plat.” Habeas 1. Parent residence section of the erected on are laid its her nance ditional conclusions tempted pliance linquished 3. pus, Code of the est of the child demands courts for Child, ents they tody. chancery power, control parents wife’s Corpus, the properly excluded; the er with Children. Child. dren —Jurisdiction [Ed. Note.-—For other Directly [Ed. Note.—For Child —Jurisdiction [Ed. Note.—For [Ed. The motion for Habeas Habeas Evidence parents, its parents. better While it is Under The district question of such have not enacted an ordinance child, which, best parents amending husband was may dispose question to Note.—For the residence whom he street or avenue will therefore be over deathbed place the lots laid and Child interest, Corpus LONG Corpus Const, Corpus in Issue. by any plat, to be determined custody, though minors (§ Dig. 84; 1913. and of the custody actually relinquished 2186-2195, custody. presumed for the child has —472*) presumption request section 161 other 84; v. SMITH rehearing a witness disposition (§ not even (§ the answer jurisdiction lots shown of Dallas on March Rehearing 99*) (§ living, to district 99*) Custody portion of a minor op 99*) fact, 5, § (§ op that it be Opinions have by depriving father and showing Court. 2*) city, custody Court. the exercise section witness Texas. or avenue in the as to conform 8, giving we find: knowledge in habeas et Disposition by Clayton — neither had see Parent their the best inter- al. Denied Custody his courts, child, Custody his child Habeas Cor placed with reared, 2 which deprive of a minor § 2.*] considered wife’s Amarillo. Evidence, Building any Matters rebutted. frontage an ordi- op for ad- Habeas Habeas though corpus Chil moth- par- cus- at- re- op op *For other cases see same Indexe section NUMBER in Dec. &Am.
Poindexter v. Schaffner
162 S.W. 22
Tex. App.1913Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.