*1
Tex,)
RY.
LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN
CO. OE TEXAS
ST.
STATE
something
minutes, possibly
(cid:127)take'
formed,
plaintiff
time thereafter
like 40
and from time
paid upon
* * *
subscription
go
minutes,
Aquilla
from
Waco.
in
his
county
I can’t
and what
$1,300,
times renewed
swear
$1,200
what was said Hill
and several
aud
county.
notes;
La Montana
was said in McLennan
thereafter
stock
his
* * *
dissolved,
accepted
Company
proposition
I
some-
was
Land & Lumber
its
* * (cid:127)
acquired
notes.,
Aquilla
plaintiff’s
assets, including
where between
and Waco.
Durango
something
corporation,
Land That train had
like
or five
four
another
go
county
herein,
Company,
to the McLennan
line.
I
& Timber
defendant
miles
say
repre-
thereby
becoming
notice, plaintiff.
do not
sentations
a stock-
mean to
all of
those
Aquilla
prayer
company;
were made between
holder
the
the latter
county
they
line. I
being
plaintiff
don’t know that
were
petition
recover
there,
began
all made
money
but we
paid
the conversa-
defend-
and that his stock
representations
sure,
I
tion am
not
were
be can-
notes held
ant
his
completed
quite
ways
got
good
until
judgment
rendered
At the trial a
was
celed.
awarding
down the
I
sought,
road.
plaintiff
don’t know how far.’’’
relief
general
statutes,
Under our
prose-
rule is that
from that
person
“no
who
anis
inhabitant of this state
cuted.”
county
shall be sued out of the
in which he
in Hill
None of the
resided
defendants
domicile, except,”
has his
etc. Rev. St.
county.
McLennan
All were residents of
exceptions
that,
art. 1830. One of the
Bosque
“in
county, except Schow,
county.
resided
who
fraud,
all cases of
and in cases of defalcation
privilege
sued
Pleas
public officers,
in which cases suit
county
interposed,
of their
residence
county
instituted in the
in which the fraud
jury
which were submitted to
committed,
was
or where the defalcation oc-
against such
rendered
court and
verdict
curred, or where the
defendant
his domi-
county
jurisdiction
pleas. The
of the Hill
cile.”
depended
fraudu-
false or
living
county,
The defendants not
in Hill
having
ap-
representations
been made to
lent
pellee
upon appellant
was incumbent
to show that
county,
him
in Hill
which induced
representations constituting
the-
fraud were
corporation.
in the land
subscribe for stock
county.
made in 1-Iill
The evidence was not
Appellants
court erred
contend that the
sufficiently
jury
definitely
certain for the
jury
submitting
issue of the
to the
county
committed,
fix in which
the fraud was
county,
evidence
in Hill
because
to sue
fails
as the witness said he could “not swear what
to show that
fraud
committed
county
was said in Hill
and what was said in
county.
upon appellee in Hill
county,”
exception
McLennan
prevail
and for the
representations
[1,2]
claimed to
over the
rule there must be
by appellee’s evidence,
fraudulent, as shown
stronger evidence of the existence of facts
stated,
I have heretofore
are as follows: “As
which would authorize it than exist in this
including
they
expenses
told me that
appellee
case. The burden was on
to show
they
paid
price
land
had
a dollar
and
an acre
perpetrated
that the fraud was
in 1-Iillcoun-
gold
for the land.
If it had been
virtually
ty,
says,
say
but he
“I cannot
I had
it at
a fact and
known
that time
county,”
whether it was in 1-Iillor McLennan
they
that, I
had not done
would not have sub
jury
which
were not
in
it so uncertain
renders
I
stock. As have heretofore
scribed
justified
saying
it was committed
parties
testified,
told me of certain
county.
Hill
up
had
I have named
doubled
whom
jurisdiction
having
The court not
capitalization.
stock
this second
If
parties
facts,
assignment
no other
I
would
known
had not
I
had
done
considered;
will be
but the cause will be re-
not have subscribed for
that stock.” manded, with instructions to the lower court
testimony
All
reference to said
county
to transfer it to McLennan
for trial
representations
county
been made in Hill
under article
Rev. St. 1911.
testimony
appellee’s
as follows:
Aquilla on
occurred from
“It
to Waco.
got
gentlemen
Aquilla,
Those
and
on the train at
Aquilla
I
with them from
talked
to Wa- STATE v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN
began immediately
RY.
conversation
CO. OF
co. The
TEXAS
al.
et
got
Rowe and Mr.
when Mr.
Schow
on the (Court
Appeals
of Civil
of Texas. Austin.
Aquilla.
something
May 21,
It is
Rehearing,
train at
like four
1913. On Motion for
July 5,
ofWrit
Error Dismissed
miles,
Aquilla
miles,
four
about
Supreme
10, 1913.)
Court Dec.
county
might vary just
line. It
McLennan
**
*
9*)
(§
approximately
Railroads
Commission—
little.
20 miles
—Ordebs
Appeal.
Review —
* * *
Aquilla to Waco.
I
from
signed
think I
6658, placing
Rev. Civ. St.
art.
subscription
got
I
list before
to parties complainingof an order of the Railroad
bringing
say just exactly
Waco,
I
action in
could not
the district
how
aside,
showing “by
set it
the burden
court to
clear and
reasonable and
given
pretty positive
long.
I am
I
did not
satisfactory evidence”
that it is un-
Sign
Waco, although
I
presumption
* * *
guess
have done it.
I
it would
of a trial court that it is
topic
Dig.
Dig. Key-No.
Rep’r
eases see same
section
Am.
Dec.
Series
Indexes
*For
NUMBERin
*2
(Tex.
REPORTER
165 SOUTHWESTERN
legislative power,
justified by
be accorded such or-
tion
the facts must
and does not invali-
court,
appeal from the date the law.
district
and on
der in the
against
bolding
judgment of
cases,
[Ed. Note.—For other
see Constitution
clearly
contrary
order,
satis-
Law,
Dig.
the
factorily
till
94-102;
Dig. 62;*
al
§§
Cent.
§
Dee.
by
adduced
the Railroads,
Dig.
the evidence
shown
130, 131, 133, 135,
Cent.
§§
Dig.
136;
court.
district
§
Dec.
58.*]
Railroads,
cases, see
Note.—For other
48*) Validity
[Ed.
(§
7. Constitutional
Law
oe
—
12-19;
Dig.
Dig.
9.*]
§
§§
Dec.
Cent.
Laws.
unconstitutional,
A law should not be held
9*)
(§
oe Commission—
2. Railroads
—Orders
clearly
unless
so.
Pleadings.
Proceeding
to
Aside —
Set
cases,
[Ed. Note.—For' other
see Constitution
given by
remedy
St.
Rev. Civ.
Even if the
Law,
Dig. 46;
Dig.
al
§
Cent.
§ 48.*]
Dec.
complaining
1911,
6657,
parties
of an
art.
to
by
Commission,
in the
action
of Railroad
order
district
the order set
(§ 58*)
8. Railroads
—Commission—Powers—
against
court,
to have
Depot.
oe
Site
Union
6658,
aside, which, under article
grant,
terms,
Leg. (2d
Acts 31st
showing
burden
the order
Sess.)
have the
power
Ex.
c.
to' the Railroad Com-
exclusive,
them,
unjust
be
require
and unreasonable to
mission to
railroads to build
brought
answer,
in a
in such
pots,
by implication
suit
every power
carries
neces-
Attorney
General,
com-
sary
accomplishment
object,
to
includ-
mission, against
such
them for enforcement
ing
ing
site;
to select the
fail-
disobedience,
order,
penalty
for its
refusing
agree
and for
to
thereon.
unjust
they allege
be
to
answer
the' order
which
cases,
Railroads,
[Ed. Note.—For other
see
them,
reason
facts
as to
and unreasonable
set
Dig.
130, 131, 133, 135, 136;
§§
Cent.
Dec.
pray
order be declared
Dig. § 58.*].
equivalent,
in their
void or.
(§ 47*)
Eminent Domain
plea
favor,
in reconvention
amounts to a
—Condemnation
Depot
eor
invoking
Union
—Land oe Railroad.
cross-bill,
of their
substantial
Such
remedy.
interest
the land
statutory
one
company
of
Railroad Commission that
depot purposes
as is
Railroads,
cases, see
other
[Ed. Note.—Eor
companies,
two other
under the order
Dig.
Dig.
12-19;
9.*]
§
§§
Dec.
Cent.
construct a
three
Judgment
on the
site of
first com-
(§ 948*)
Judicata —Plead
—Res
may
by them,
ing.
be condemned
under Rev.
gany,
railroad,
6504, authorizing
!iv. St.
'art.
available,
judicata,
be
be
Res
to
agree
purchase
unable
to
the owner for
pleaded.
depots,
real estate
for its
to condemn it.
Judgment,
cases, see
[Ed. Note.—For other
cases,
Do
[Ed. Note.—For other
Eminent
see
Dig.
1787-1793;
Dig. 948.*]
§
Dec.
§§
Cent.
Dig.
Dig.
main,
107-120;
§§
Cent.
§ 47.*]
Dec.
(§ 62*) Delegation
Law
4. Constitutional
47*)
—
(§
Domain
10.Eminent
—Condemnation
to
oe Power
—Property Subject
Mortgage.
Commission.
to
'
power
Legislature,
under
While
railroad,
though subject,
Land of
Const,
roads, may
mission,
must be
abuses
rail-
§
art.
to correct
property,
the rest of
to the lien of all its
delegated
the Railroad Com-
may
mortgage bonds,
condemned for a
is an
the declaration
what
abuse depot;
being
party
the bondholders
Legislature.
by an act of
proceedings.
cases,
cases,
see Constitution
[Ed. Note.—For other
[Ed. Note.—For other
see Eminent Do
Dig.
Dig.
94-102;
Law,
Dig.
main,
107-120;
Dig.
§ 62.*]
Dec.
§§
Cent.
§§
al
Dec.
§ 47.*]
Cent.
—
(§
(§ 47*)
9*)
Domain
11.Eminent
Power—
Railroads
—Condemnation
—Commission
Property
Special
eor
oe
Condemned
Pur
“Abuse.”
pose.
railroad,
An abuse
which the Railroad
may
correct,
site, though
act,
is declared
A railroad’s
condemned
using
“abuse,”
imposing
purpose, may
the word
but
it for
be condemned for
disregarding
duty
duty
railroad;
depot,
which
another
on the
the
it and
being
.
abuse.
ordered
to con-
Railroad Commission
thereon;
struct
one from whom such com-
cases,
Railroads,
other
see
Note.—For
[Ed.
pany
being
it
condemned
made a
to the
12-19;
Dig.
Dig.
§
Dec.
9.*
§§
Cent.
proceedings,
ex-
second
and therein allowed
definitions,
Phrases,
see Words and
For other
damages
may be entitled.
to which it
tra
1, pp.
49.]
vol.
cases, see Eminent Do
[Ed. Note.—For other
Dig.
107-120;
Dig.
main,
(§
62*)
§§
§
Cent.
Dec.
47.*]
6. Constitutional
Law
—Railroads
—58*)
Delegation
(§
oe Power
to Rail
(§ 254*) Disobeying Orders
12.Railroads
—
Deeots.
road Commission —Union
oe Commission —Penalties.
Leg. (2d
Sess.)
Ex.
31st
c.
declar-
Acts
prescribed by
penalties
Leg.
Acts 31st
ing
two more railroads reach
where
Sess.)
10, 2,
(2d
§
failure of
c.
railroads
Ex.
town,
same
shall
obey
orders of the commission
construc-
practicable
ascertain whether
imposed,
not be
of a union
tion
depot,
for them
use
and if
feasible
it
refusing
obey
orders,
they,
join
practicable
for them to
finds it
wrongdo-
willfully,
ing,
vice of
in the
intentional
sense of
depot,
give
and use of a
it shall
construction
standing
they,
under the ad-
what
investigation
them, and,
after
rights.
counsel,
legal
be their
believed to
construction and
cases,
Railroads,
see
Note.—For other
[Ed.
provided
them,
maintenance
Dig.
Dig.
764-772;
264.*]
§
Dec.
§§
Cent.
appear
the construction and
thereof is
and reasonable
maintenance
the
terest,
such
fect,
certain
union
Rehearing.
On Motion for
companies and
in-
demanded
(§
requirements
9*) Disposition
specify
oe
Case
13.Railroads
and it
— Appeal
character,
is,
depot
a declaration that
—Remand.
as to
ef-
kind
shall,
court in
the district
While
against
railroads,
conditions,
an order of
construct and maintain
favor of
reversed,
leaving
merely
there
must be
Railroad
being
was
to the commission
determination,
instance,
the order
them,
insufficient' evidence to show
the first
whether
yet
delega-.
unjust
exist,
is not the
unreasonable
which
conditions
those
Rep’r
Dig.
tppio
Dig.
Key-No.
see
and section
&Am.
Series
Indexes.
oases
NUMBERin Dec.
*For
y.
OE TEXAS
RY. CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN
STATE
Tes.)
hearing by
Railroad Com-
been called
evidence
some
there
be
was, in certain re-
that the order
8, 1910,
inferred
mission of Texas on Miarch
commission
ed and the
spects,
unreasonable
offer-
heard the evidence
seeming
not as
the case
and it
developed
presented pertaining
facts
been,
*3
should have
it
thereon
it
again
petition
remanded,
and the no-
issues
matters covered
that these
will be
passed
specifically
on.
and
submitted
having duly
herein,
tice
same,
and
considered the
Railroads,
cases, see
Note.—For other
[Ed.
having
had,
also
under its direc-
and
Dig.
12-19;
Dig.
9.*]
§
Dec.
§§
Cent.
physical
respect
tion, the
conditions with
Court,
depot building prayed
Appeal
Travis Coun-
District
the location of the
for
Judge.
ty;
Wilcox,
duly
reported
inspected
Chas. A.
and
on
against
pas-
St. engineer,
present
Texas
the State of
Suit
is of
Railway Company
senger depot
railway
of
Louis Southwestern
of
lines en-
facilities
defendants,
Judgment
tering
city
Hillsboro,
Tex.,
Texas and others.
in-
thq
of
appeals.
and re- adequate
Reversed
and the State
of
and insufficient to the needs
station,
manded.
and for
the business of said
pub-
traveling
accommodation of the
Atty. Gen.,
Looney,
Nick-
and Luther
B. F.
lic,
operation,
construction,
and that the
and
Atty. Gen.,
els,
B.
State. E.
Asst.
passenger depot a union
maintenance of
Lassiter,
Perkins,
Dallas,
Ft.
H.
of
N.
of
city
jointly by
rail-
all the
of Hillsboro
Scott, Waco,
Worth,
Mor-
W. C.
R.
Sam
way companies
named and whose
hereinafter
Glass,
row, Hillsboro,
Aus-
Hiram
city
feasible and
lines enter said
is both
appellees.
tin, for
practicable,
and reasonable to the
Findings of Fact.
companies involved, is demanded
railroad
by
mutually
public interest,
and will be
brought'
JENKINS,
1. This suit was
J.
companies and to
to said railroad
beneficial
against
Texas,
appellant,
the state
traveling public.
appellees,
way Company
Rail-
St. Louis Southwestern
“
authority
‘Therefore,
virtue of the
Texas,
Missouri, Kan-
hereby
it is
or-
Texas, conferred
Railway Company
&
sas
Texas
Railroad Commission that the
dered
Valley Railway
Trinity & Brazos
and the
Railway
Missouri, Kansas & Texas
Com-
penal-
Company, to recover of each of them
pany
Texas, the St. Louis
Southwestern
violation of the orders of
ties for the
Railroad Commission of
to the construction of
Railway
Trinity
Company Texas, and the
Texas, in
reference
Valley Railway Company be and
& Brazos
they
construct,
senger depot
a union
as here-
hereby
ordered
man-
"for writ of
inafter
set
pas-
operate,
and maintain a .union
injunction
require
mandatory
damus and
the erection and maintenance of
building
city
Hills-
de-
building
Tex.,
boro,
pot Hillsboro,
appellees.
to be located
Tex.,
at
purpose
railway
corpora-
for which it
so
to best serve the
2.
is a
Each of
expense
construction,
intended,
tion,
operates
and each
railroad which
operation
maintenance,
city Hillsboro,
of said
county,
in Hill
reaches
railway
prorated
between the said
Tex.
be.
they may
companies upon
basis as
have no
among
Hillsboro,
oper-.
themselves.
termine
but each owns and
“
sixty
city.
separate
is further ordered that within
‘It
ates a
plans
days
specifica-
January 17, 1911,
(60)
date
from this
On
the Railroad
Com-
building
following
re-
hereinbefore
tions for the
mission of Texas entered the
der:
or-
prepared
quired
constructed be
to be
at
this commission
its office
submitted to
“Officeof Railroad Commission of Texas.
capitol
Austin,
in order that
n “HearingNo. 1108.
judge
adequacy
and for
thereof
Texas, January
“Austin,
17, 1911.
depot building
approval, and that said
ready
occupancy
on
be constructed
or before
Passenger
“Hillsboro Petition for Union
January 1, 1911.
Depot Building.
“ ‘[Signed]
Colquitt,
B.O.
pursuance
“Whereas, in
thereto-
“
Williams,
D.
‘William
duly
legally issued,
fore
the Railroad
“ ‘Commissioners.
did,
1910,
22,
Commission Texas
March
’
“
McLean, Secretary.’
E. R.
‘Attest:
duly
promulgate
issue
its order in hear-
ing
appearing
follows,
whereas,
No.
to the Rail-
to wit:
“And
railway
that said
road Commission
“ ‘Officeof Railroad Commission of Texas.
wholly
of them
and all
n “‘Hearing No. 1007.
comply with or be
and refused to
failed
governed
“ ‘Austin, Texas,
March
said order so en-
the terms of
“
Passenger
‘Hillsboro Petition for Union
the Rail-
date of March
tered
road
Depot Building.
Texas,
“
authority
law, did,
cause,
conferred
‘The above numbered and entitled
railway
31, 1910,
pursuance
duly
com-
given,
issue to said
In
October
of notice
Dig.
Dig. &
Key-No.
Rep’r
Indexes
Dec.
Am.
Series
*For other
see
topic
cases
section NUMBER
(Tex.
t .
....
REPORTER
165.SOUTHWESTERN
construction,
pañíes
lows,
and shall
depot
of said
notice as fol-
them the
and. each of
begun
to be
on or before a certain date
to wit:
named in
its said order.
“
Texas.
Commission of
‘Office Railroad
“ ‘[Signed]
Mayfield,
Allison
“
“
‘Austin, Texas,
October
‘Chairman,
“
“
Colquitt,
‘O. B.
‘Special Notice.
“
Williams,
‘William D.
“
Railway
Missouri,
& Texas
Kansas
‘To the
“ ‘Commissioners.
Company Texas,
Louis South-
the St
“
McLean, Secretary.’
‘Attest: E. R.
Texas,
Railway Company
western
Railway
Valley
thereafter,
wit,
Trinity
Brazos
“That
on November
the
Company:
*4
1910, hearing
the
was had in the office of
“
Austin,
Railroad Commission of
at
Texas
‘Whereas,
order dated March
pursuance
Tex., in
whereby
of said
of date
hearing
the
No.
entered
was
above-named
ed and
of
having
October
companies
order-
railroad
present-
heard the evidence offered and facts
by
required
Railroad Commission
pertaining
by
ed
operate,
to the matters covered
said
jointly construct,
and
Texas
notice,
question
proper
building
as well as the
passenger depot
of
maintain a union
depot building
location of said
and the nec-
depot
X-Iillsboro,Tex.,
city
said
of
essary
duly
having
same,
tracks to
purposes
serve the
and
best
as to
serve
be located so
for which
of
of
same,
considered the
and
also
expense
intended, and the
it is
physical
had
tions
operation
its direction the
condi-
maintenance,
construction,
and
respect
of the de-
prorated
to the location
basis as
on such
be
same could
themselves, pot building duly
reported
inspected and
determined
be
by
engineer,
is of
finds
and
depot
in accordance
be constructed
said
with
and
present passenger
prepared;
fact
the
depot
be that
specifications
plans
to be
and
railway
facilities of said
enter-
lines
“
ing
city
inadequate
Hillsboro, Tex.,
obey-
‘Whereas,
has not been
said order
companies; and,
and insufficient to the needs of the business
by
where-
railroad
ed
said
proper
station,
companies
of said
dation of the
and for the
accommo-
and
as,
have failed
railroad
said
traveling public,
and that
present
Commis-
to the Railroad
refused
operation,
construction,
specifications
plans
and maintenance
and
of Texas
sion
a union
order,
depot
city
by
passenger
required'
depot
Hills-
passenger
union
said
said
as
jointly
railway companies
compa-
by
whereas,
and,
boro
all the
said railroad
upon plans
spec-
agree
enter
hereinbefore named and whose lines
and
are unable
nies
ifications
city
practicable,
depot:
and
said
is both feasible
for said
“
just
companies
hereby given
‘Now,therefore,
and reasonable to the railroad
notice is
by
interest,
involved,
companies,
is demanded
and
railroad
above-named
the
each of
of Texas
at
mutually
them,
and will be
road
lic:
beneficial to said rail-
Railroad Commission
that the
traveling pub-
companies,
Friday,
will,
well
as
as the
November
capítol Austin,
at
consider
in the
its office
authority
adoption
promulga-
by
“Therefore,
question
and
con-
of the
virtue of the
the
tion
requirements
specifying
hereby
it is
ordered
of an
ferred
passen-
Missouri,
and character
Railroad
kind
Commission
as to
jointly
Railway Company Texas,
depot
ger
constructed
& Texas
Kansas
city
companies
Railway Com;
in the
railroad
Louis Southwestern
the St.
above-named
hearing
Trinity
and,
pany
Texas,
Hillsboro,
and
and
Brazos
after due
Valley Railway Company
plans
suggestions
be and
all
and
consideration
that
above-named
presented
hereby
operate
and
and made
construct
be
ordered
companies,
passenger
and
and maintain a union
de-
Tex.,
pot building
Hillsboro,
them,
kind and character of such
as to the
baggage
passenger depot,
building
and
will enter its order
to include
is to be constructed of
said
express
union
specifying
passenger
rooms,
requirements
and
material,
shown
as to kind and character
and
brick and
blueprint plans
with the
hereto
thereof.
accordance
“
respec-
B,
attached,
Exhibits A and
‘The
marked
commission at said time will fur-
question
parts
apportion- tively,
hereof.
ther consider the
and
ordered, adjudged,
de-
ment of the cost
taining
main-
is further
and
of construction and
“It
passenger
depot, and,
that said
said union
if
creed
including
baggage
companies
depot building,
express
and
said
the above-named
cannot
city,
agree upon
rooms,
constructing
are to be located in the
the cost of
and
Tex.,
occupied
maintaining
passenger depot,
Hillsboro,
site
said union
on the
now
then of
Railway
Missouri,
Texas
the said Railroad
itself
maintaining
Kansas &
Commission of Texas will
station,
passenger
apportion
constructing
Company
of Texas
cost of
plans
blueprint
attached
same.
hereto
The Railroad Com-
shown
part
will,
C,
hereof.
and made
mission
at said
Exhibit
marked
ordered, adjudged,
order,
limit the time
further
within which said
“It is
passenger constructed,
that said
Railroad Commission
shall creed
Tes.)
y.
SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OE TEXAS
STATE ST. LOUIS
companies,
station,
shall business of said
and for the
each of
railroad
construct the
public.
traveling
to serve
accommodation of
tracks
per
construction,
operation,
and as
7. The
and mainte-
union
the
in accordance
attached,
passenger depot
blueprint plan
nance of a
marked
said sta-
hereto
jointly by
appellees,
C,
tion
as ordered
Exhibit
and made a
hereof.
Missouri,
appears
Kan- Railroad
both
feasible
“It further
just
appel-
practicable,
Railway Company
reasonable to
of Texas owns
sas & Texas
lees,
hereby
demanded
interest.
the location
the site
said
selected for
agree among
cannot
them-
depot building,
would
Missouri,
selves
either as to location
apportionment
construction of
equitable,
Kan-
both
Texas,
Railway Company
the cost
sas & Texas
well as to the St. Louis
constructing or
of costs of
Rail-
Southwestern
maintaining
Trinity
way Company
the same.
of Texas and
specifications
site, plans,
Yalley Railway Company,
that said
Brazos
prorating
compensate
operating,
erecting,
costs of
last two named
maintaining
at said sta-
of two-
extent
drst named
thirds of
tion, as set out in
said order
the commis-
said site.-
value of
January
17, 1911,
sion of
adjudged,
ordered,
“It
is therefore
unreasonable to
either
them.
*5
decreed
appellees
disobeyed
10. Each of
Railway Company
St. Louis Southwestern
order,
previous
Yalley said
and all
orders of said
Trinity
Brazos
of Texas and the
depot.
Missouri,
commission
reference to said union
pay
Railway Company
to said
Attorney
brought by
11. This suit was
Railway Company of Texas
Texas
Kansas &
General of Texas in
to an
obedience
order of
fair value for
of the reasonable
one-third
the real
commission,
said
made and
entered
Jan-
by
said
estate so used
uary 22, 1912.
pur-
pursuance
poses.
this
for union
court,
12. In the trial before the
appellees.
was rendered for
ordered, adjudged, and de-
further
“It is
by
creed
that
Opinion.
of said
the construction
the cost of
appellees
will
be referred
prorated
depot building
said
Katy,
Belt,
as the
Cotton
them,
companies,
on a
and each of
by
V.,
the T. B.
as
these are the names
company; that is
to each
basis of one-third
commonly
known.
Missouri, Kan-
say,
that the
it is ordered
findings
[1] 1.
fact found
Company
pay
Railway
of Texas
sas & Texas
one-third
trial court
toas
reasonableness and
of the construction
of the cost
necessity
were the reverse of those found
depot building,
Southwest-
St. Louis
said
Ordinarily
us.
we would feel
bound
pay
Company
Railway
one-
of Texas
ern
findings
court,
of fact
trial
unless
Trinity
cost,
& Brazos
and the
third
clearly appeared
findings
that such
were
pay
Valley Railway Company shall
one-third
wrong.
however,
regard
case,
In this
we
said
of construction of
of the cost
place
occupying
Railroad Commission as
building.
ordinarily occupied by
duty
trial
court. The
adjudged,
ordered,
further
“It is
primarily
upon it
devolved
to ascertain
Railroad Commission of Texas
creed
that said
the facts. The
before the
suit
hereby
railroads be
upon appellees’ answer
in was
the nature of
period
three months from this date
findings
an
from the
of the commis
begin
the construction
in which
provides
sion. The statute
the burden rests
of
that in such suits
building
months from this
building,
and twelve
upon
party complaining
together
in which to have
date
show, “by
orders of the commission to
leading thereto,
necessary tracks
all
with
completed
satisfactory evidence,”
clear and
orders
sonable. Article
operation.
complained
unjust
of are
and unrea
Mayfield,
“Allison
6658,
1911;
R. S.
Commis
“Chairman.
Commerce,
v.
sion Chamber
145 S. W.
105 Tex.
Colquitt.
“O. B.
Ry.
580;
Co. v.
102
Williams,
“William D.
W.
Tex.
113 S.
its entire assets are estate, pot. their the of writ of proceeding, in purposes, cover ment pany. ease of would in, in favor of those junction. rendered. change of the Railroad Commission recover above all of the fully protected. of ed and that, fully, well settled that statutes bondholders could be to for passenger depot not such additional show himself the further finding. sought refusals curing condemnation site free from such said For the Affirmed In the [11] [12] As to the the trial court is prayed penalties, be appellant made a prayer holders of said bonds bonds and acquire would mean commission persistent, is here reversed and rendered legal rights. -Therefore we will in the sense used, stated, lose their investment said; to be enforced. to amount penalties default, mandamus Katy doing no first But this On Motion for because such lands reasons above set denies the appellees. for in its penalties trial said site from advice site original it was right lands for they but will reason that “In paragraph mandamus and part, and the evidence proceedings, railroad to entitled to so, at Hillsboro which he assets any purpose damages, court found but we If railroad for the said against appellant presents condemnation which affirmed, in so far as said and in standing petition sued owner end right of condemned, viz., for a extent, insist use, or penalties intentional grant it the relief counsel, mortgage liens, as the only interest right of mandatory $34,000,000, second condemnation were Rehearing. to railroad of our whom legal right for; if ease giving would be allowed no obstacle strictly $36,000,000; appears herein. in said were intentional any, however, be permit were passenger depot obey parties to such other than that appellant in reference to Katy to be as mandatory in believed to be Katy acquired reason of the sued said granting way railway reversed and penalties enforced, sustains the order of foreclose wrongdoing, proceedings, as he could facts as to mortgaged, injunction, what said the orders site construed and that that appellees the same for, building. recovery to equities we re- to re- favor could to depot pray judg- do in here- could they, *9 deny com will it a se- of order. yvere the The by way upon by the trial again tend. We did not mean to in the district stated, trict admit for rehearing versed gard which the union respect, have been as think order that be inferred that said orders opinion herein, but, edge as to what on motion for before the called of the meant to before the Railroad certain inasmuch as appellees; but the case does not seem to case, justified been erecting reasonable and the commission say, it must until rily ton orders one-third of the Railroad Commission of Texas were not un ord made was court constructed, and one-third of the complaining of [13] We have evidence in be tried in either place Belt S. W. nature of an rehearing. Accordingly presumptions shown duty satisfactory permissible testimony court, upon appellees’ answer, in error in submitted to upon of a adhere in all other we commission.” This us in ordinarily unreasonable contrary this additional devolved justified .by indulge commission. impeaching case reverse and remand this construction these issues of fact should be remanded. facts. the statute makes maintaining granted, the record language recently rehearing. accordance finding of a trial court. That is to carefully review court and unreasonable as to said such trial as it should have been. We and have concluded that we presumed court. See Miller each of T. & B. V. in so far ought evidence binding, value holding a suit in favor developed testimony same shall occupied upon prove upon clearly and this decided the evidence . record is that above re-examined the rec suit before the that we did not evidence was. The was ordered to be witness. What we opinion specifically passed what was testified it would not have appellees from the him, unless the facts in say that an order so given by primarily respects the motion for set aside such on these adduced language which it quoted such orders all prove by were, depot. reason roads to remanded, that we were orders of the ground upon the orders of a trial court. trial of this the evidence an. cause on motion satisfacto- no knowl- this court occupying appellate the Cot adduced opinion, findings cost are un- in this Hobdy, as said law to except points to There above cause party clear case, pay dis- as- re- in-