*1 TERMI RY. & аl. v. DALLAS TRIBBLE et NAL et al. CO. Appeals of Dallas. Texas. of Civil
Court Jan. Denied Sadler, Dallas, appellants. S. P. Beall, Worsham, Rollins, Ry-& Buford
burn, Collins, Kucera, J. J. H. appellees. LOONEY, Appellants, plaintiffs below, J. injunctive sought manent, against relief, temporary per Railway & Terminal Company, prevent railway corporation, constructing it from a car line over a feet wide long, being of Tremont street, city in Junius addition to the of Dallas. Plaintiffs claim that own lots part the additiоn that abut mentioned, of the street above *2 private gran strip by fee-simple title, property understood, the same is the own said however, tor, therein, being expressly perpetual private are and a entitled easement conveyed per public grantee hereby prevent a as herein is use that, by a street. its authority along petual strip, over, alleged and of easement * n n ” company Dallas, city was threaten the said easement to run with the of conveyed. operate ing car line lot its street and to build language the idea that if done will obstruct which over forbids by plaintiffs, strip a in than of its future use and interfere private conveyed, approрriation fee of and be was as an will constitute an additional out wholly expressly grantor. upon same, Subse with was retained burden 1909, Highland compensation to, quently, authority from, them. on November conveyed company Reаlty by warranty deed, railway Company, answer, street In its same, Kendall, who, plaintiffs on the were entitled to the land to J. not contended day, sought, in of land and had recorded executed- relief the was a city system public Dallas a formal dedication records of of express public by dedication, and as a street. of' same to the The “ plaintiffs language prescription, implied, dedication n n * * ** fact; Kendall, deny I, estopped J. S. themselves hаd that the -sub-joined control, map hereby adopt having as the city, tlie exclusive do ordered, plat authorized, to con- Second Addition of Junius defendant in fact hereby Dallas, Texas, street; dedi and that de- and do its line ovеr the struct proceeding of ex- streets and forever the the work cate to the alleys plat.” was fendant by temporary in- interrupted the said and shown indicated tension when junction. intervened, city and The claiming suit, plaintiffs’ One of the indicated streets combated strip avenue, dedica- by pre- 60x is Tremont 720 of which the was a implied, expressed part. tion, a and forms both realty Through conveyances scription, were com charter, predecessors, fact; pany deny under its a and their given vested, private its it over in was easement dominion absolute realty company conveyance proposed streets; use of same lawful, entirely railway comрany dedication Kendall to Kendall and the Strip public use, in a easement and will not organized repre city the land impose burden on vested in the an additional public. are These interests sentative of the Constitution. harmрny may jury, conflicting, not at same time. exist without a and re- was tried The case facts, temporary Dealing dissolving similar wit-h decree in a sulted issued, refusing plain- v. Industrial the case Mills writ, of Dallas Cotton theretofore Co., sought, the Commission permanent relief tiffs the language: right appealed. used this they have acquired of a which the of Dal- discloses that the record The easement; right- 23,'1927, which the individual las, quired March entered an order purchaser acquirеd private company easement-. its line to extend defendant contemporaneous Strip including The two could exist over Tremont operation, prepar- or the one could be harmonious question. land in destrоyed impairment ready begin order, obey ing extension, the other.” have com- would the work injunction. So, private pleted same, we conclude easement but for -strip acquired by plaintiffs High- question is: consideration first Realty Cоmpany system prevent did not be- of the Street Was this public use, later dedicated order was of Dallas at time the the made? We think sons: by charter, following so, the owner of the fee. The under its rea- control, was entitled to еxclusive ownership au- and in Plaintiffs’ claim of and inter require, permit, language defend- thorized to and even est the land based certain railway company ant to extend its line over In deeds executed to Novem contained 4, 1909, Highland Realty Company, same. ber the conveying plaintiffs, The evidence also showed that common source by implication, they street, them, dedicated whatever interest and to their now own that abut on the lots languаge employed is as fol the fact. expressly This street was macadamized with rock under lows: stood, however, of land 60 feet and adjoining prop Heights addition, described the above wide erty E. is not a street and used the S. but has nоt been
935’
After the addition became a
record further discloses that Mrs'. Bess
Jones, formerly
Kendall,
on November
authorities as- W.
the wife of J. S.
addition, deceased,
right
1927,
sumed
control of the streets
took at his death whatever
*3
worked, graded,
1924,
land,
May
30,
Prior to
and drained them.
he
owned
and on
just
plaintiffs'
abutting property
prior
suit, joined
and other
to
institution of
city by petition
by
present husband,
quitclaimed
owners asked
“Tremont Street”
to have
her
paved, including
in
advertised for
brought
view facts heretofore
under
paving bids,
contract, discussion,
let the
is evident
that
fixing liens, conveyed by
quitclaim
enacted all
etc.,
ordinances
Mrs. Jones
this
abutting property,
pub-
on
deed was at the time burdenеd with a
proceedings
public street,
lic funds all
for
costs
and under the
These facts show
street intersections.
exclusive control of the
of Dallas.
conclusively
strip
plaintiffs recognized
insist, however,
that
Plaintiffs
showed
only
streеt,
for
on
Tremont
such an
in the
con-
they justified
petitioning veyances
Realty
Highland
Company
this basis were
paved.
quitclaim
Jones,
to have same
Mrs.
recognize
prohibiting
Our
injunction,
courts
the doctrine entitled them to an
placing
that a
land to
use need
dedication of
by deed,
by public
for
land, claiming
not be shown
nor
line over the
that same will
any
burden,
being only
length
constitute an
and a
additional
unequivocal
use,
property
or dec
sufficient to show
of their
with-
dedicating
compensation.
larations of
same
out their consent and without
definitely
and where others act on
is
The law
settled
pro
intention,
faith of such manifested
prietor
state to the
construction and
effect
passenger
will be
the dedica operation of
ear
line for
any
proper
traffic,'
tion or to make
future use
on
streets of a
does not
ty
any purpose for which impose
inconsistent with
an additional burden
v.
the land was
Grenet,
damage
dedicated. See Oswald
taking of
or
.such
99;
County
94,
22
v.
Lamar
Tex.
of the Constitu
City
Clements,
347, 357;
v.
49 Tex.
Orrick
compensation.
tion as
entitles the owner
443;
(Tex.
App.)
W.
32
Fort Worth
City
Civ.
S.
Ry.
Rosedale, etc., Co.,
&
v.
See Texas
Co.
Aрp.)
(Tex. Civ.
of Kaufman
French
v.
80, 83,
739;
Rep.
64 Tex.
53 Am.
An
San
City
831, 834;
v.
Antonio
171 W.
San
S.
tonio, etc.,
85,
Limburger,
79,
Co. v.
88 Tex.
307,
451,
Sullivan,
App.
23 W.
4
S.
Tex. Civ.
533,
Rep. 730; Aycock
30 W.
S.
53 Am. St.
v.
308; Money
(Tex.
App.) 256
v. Aiken
S.
Civ.
Antonio, etc., Ass’n,
App.
San
26 Tex. Civ.
39,
642;
Walker,
641,
95 Tex.
Grace v.
W.
341,
Transp. Co.,
953, 955;
63 S. W.
Rische v. Texas
930,