Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN /
Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 2
our lnveetigation of authorities disolosed that ..- -
fn a large number of states snob a Jornaer or separare owners 01 separate and distinct parcels of land, in a sing&a cond~emnation prooeeding, is provided for br statute. Sea hailroad V. Christy, 92 Ill. 339; Barton v. Eleotrlo Railway, 220 Ill. 99; Taooma v. Bonell, 58 lash. 595, 109 P. 60; Friedenwald v. Mayor of Baltimore, 94 lid. 116.
Other states, like Texas,.do not by statute
speoltlaally prwfde tar the joinder of separate owner8 ei separate tract8 oi lend In a single oondematlon preoeedln& The courts in two euoh states, Xa8aaoBusetts and Ohio, wla%eh iOllow the oommon lew syeite% O? practice, alearly permit 8a0B Joinder erea In tha absenoe,oi stloh statutory qutbority. See City of Springfield 'I. Sleeper, ll6 Mass. 589; Barton T. Wigglesworth, 119 Bare. S368~ Qlesy t. Railroad, 4 QUO St. 308.
A rsooguized text writer on safnent bmai* atate8 the rule to be aa iollowsr
"Sa the abeenoo of any expresrr~ statatarf prorl~loa Ltrould 8eeivta re8t ia ,M%e dl8ore- tlon of the court whether diatinot alalms to? dartwage by the same work d-1 improvement rrhomld be tried aopamtely or togathor". E Lewis on Eminent DomaIn ll5, hation 666.
In Texa8 the general stat6ties whloh @orem the of the pewer OS maiaerrt demaia are Artloles exerofss 5~664%91, inoluslte, being Title 56, Other titlea rhloh we will not list here prwl%e for the ereroise of pewer or eminent demaln br epeaifia bodies. By Artiale 6694& it that Hi&war G~ission in the oondaaarihion is prorfded of laed for highna proaedure set purposes shall foll#w tb out ia Title B2. 5 he faot that this road has been deslgp nated as a highway by the Highway doralseion places these proaeedlngs within the provisions of Artlale 8694% Fer the purpose of this dlsauseion, it is neaessary for us to exe~%e only three of the artlollss under Title SE.
Among other thhga, Art.lole Se64 provides for an *3 Honorable R. A. Rarton, Paga 3
attempt to agree with the landowner on the amount or damages ; appliaation to the oounty judge upon failure to agree on damages; appointment by the county jadee of three special oommissionera
to asaess damages; aud esrvloe of notioe on the landownera of the time and plaoe of ths hearing, either personally or by publioatlon. ‘trader Arti- elk 3265, the Legislature has provided for the method to be rollowed~ in assessing the damages. q’he proaedure to be followed in appealing from damages and oompensatlon as- sessed by the emwissloners is provided in Artlale 3266.
OUT courts have often pointed oat that s&as tke powet of om%nsnt domsla le in derogation ot the aoma rl&t, statutes waiah govern Its areroise ,ara to bs atrlot3j eoawtrasd and are not to be extended beFond their plain provlsiQns. Van Ya~kenburgh v. Ford (Giv. App. Galrestan, lSl8), 209 8. W. SO4j aifimed (Gwma. App. Sea. %, 192X), 22B 8. 1. 3.941 XaIarerbeklma T. &lo 109 Tex. 106, 204 8.W. use fl8l8); Oi3@ f. ztexar aowntr feir. 4p. M95). 23 B.W.
&a, al88, 2 Dill on Bukisipal t?orporat1oa8, 5ao.
:2-
Prooedur%l 8tetut68 or thl# nature ara seldom 80 mmprehuaat+e aa to rssolrs e+ey question that say arisu in regard to their applirrattcm, and it oftmi bemaea aeeeasery to rseort to othar aathority to dettmalme mathr8 Rat speoifioally aavers& by tihem.
ConQemnatloa preoeedlng8 Pabar Title 8,2, in
thalr earl7 phases spa far as drtermluat,ion of land- owner*e damagua is ~onoernud, bear i&1%&t rerramblanoe trfal 0r otbar 68uilel. After rafiure to agree oa daamges the untlre praowdzSg8 PM &errfad oa bafe~a a faot-finding, quasi-Jwdiaial bodr eonalsting, of ttuee aom- miemloneru, who hear erlaenoe and asasss the damages.
The werds *plaintffP aad %lefemlantw at thin stage oan ba ased only in an auaommtmand liberal seasa, for plaintlih ceompla3m or nothlng,i and the defendant de- afes aa past or thraataaed wrong, but both partias are the other to @et as larga astora, ohs to aaquire title, compansation as he aan. 15 Am. Zw.r. 96S. Sea. 520. Hnmwaus deelsione have ~aa~~analo~lee to pro- *4 Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 4
acedings tribunal In our courts and have daolared that this special
is governed by ths ordbnary rules of law and equity controlling the trial of oausea. Jones v. Xlssouri, Kansas and Taxae Railroad ., Dallas 1929) 14 S. W. (2d) (Cir. Ap 357, atf. (Comm. App., 1930 lp 24 S. W. (26) 366; Davidson y. Railroad (Clr. App., 1902! 57 S. W. 1093~2$o~~~~ z;,,, Small (MT. App. F‘t. Worth, 1930) 2S S, vi.
rsfuaed.
Lfbaral rule5 or joinder anaoanaed By ear oeurta apply with *pa@ ig%m ta them trtbugala. Ibaoe, t&a at- tea&tat atnra plaoad by ear oourta on eroidanoe af multi- pllsit~ of aq&W must ba otiaaidarad. In ardor to are&d or suits. our reurtr share allowad litiganta rultipl:oitJ great latitude in'Mltrw dirrerm demand8 * al suit, ire'quaqtlTr, diatlaat *au386 hmwo baan p &d UZP joined vhaa aueh jolade* was not Miapaaaabla. to be 1 Tar, JW,. ,487, ,800. 91. Bae also aor f. Cmr, 7S mx. 196, 11 SC 1. lB&$ Craddook 7. Geodria, 4 hr. 678181 Hert%- 9 authority iOr tlrs aeatamplatod jeiadar, tn wiaw at tiha re0t that aoadamti?r-plaIntIff Urf$f#S the am 6p00iri6 ri&t cr&eat eaoh evaav bet we amtd net rely ox6lealte~ en thslr geaeral oeatrxt~
*&fnarily whara,oo~aolidatien ef oauaea is pax- mltted, joiad%r vi oaaaea aamet be obje&l~~abh, aad tlati la aspoolally tma vhan ooluellaatioa is panrittad deapfte pretaat ef *as of *ha litiganta,
In a mms%%t 6aaa deolded by tha Wmaia6f06 of A~paala, appellPant*a sxoaption to oenae2idatlon a? aererrl diatlnot actions agalaat earersl separate ewaara or separate and distisat traota et land was evwruLed. Uilliaaa 6t al 1. Headarson 00-t Leres reremeat Dfstriot iQe.3 (Ccnnm. Appp. Sea. 38, 1955 3 90 9. 81. %d, as. uhilo lb is tree that tha oourt aited Artiola 7995, whioh SpeolriOally provides rep aazoh oonaolidatlen, 'wa bellera t&a rollewWg laaguage bl Taatlos Short la auffiolently bread OQY~F oonaolldatlm sad joiader la ~tihar ooridmatlea proooediqga, and that It is, at laaat, Indioative ei attitude Of the present aeurtir
Honorable B. A. Esrton, Page 5
"The trial judge, In the exercise of his dlsoretion, oonaolldated the suits. The mite were tried bafors the court without a jury and there Is nothing in this reoord to show that any harm hes been done the litigant by aonsolidatlng these suite. This holding is in line with the rule announoed by the decisions that It la tha publio pelioy of this state to avoid a multi- plloit~ of aulta~w
A starther indloatlea that our oenrts do net ra- and gaxd the Iclinsnt D0aal.a 6tatatsa as beisg inflaxlbla all-inolaaito, is tho fellewing langusga in Davidson f. Bailxead, aumt
*J&may atataa thu right to make eppeam 0k&166646 parthi %a oettSorred br atatuta.~ WIQ fe us that this right mriata ln a&- it aagu nenoe or apaaial prevision, end is a nuouaoa~ fnoidaa$ to the right to oendema, fer it neul4 be idle ~to oqUer the pmmr omsUamn aad at tha 66mo tira 60 restriot a rf%pt as to dear thu &all- read Cs a fu&gsent rhfsh would pmteot ita pssaeaeien and pr&eet it qgainet a dot&lo ru- ow~s~; aad our atetut-ue gevurnhg the praoeedisg wInan thu ebjeot 00 be l aoeq)iiahad is ceruidarad are ralz1.y auaoaptible of tha oonrrtraatioa we hare plaae4 epen thu.*
Approa&iing tha problem trm anethw ax@., lat ma take into aeoowt the fast that a mejeritf, ii aet all, of the landowners sited by pablloation nilX net appear at the hearing fox! eaaussaiant of dsmagaa ooapeaaatlea, aad that thuy will tall to appeal from tha desisle~a or tha ma- mlseienera within the wquiatto ten days pmvidod .ia Artiolo 3266. Such owners would soquiw the atatwa of derondaata against rhea a default jad6auat had been taken, ahmu upon the expiration of that time, the ooanty jadgs ia reqaimd to szoE; deQiSiO6 0r the oemmissio3ers se judgment OS (Qir. App. Uaee, 1OSlL),
Binolalr T. City or Dallas 445 S. W/(&d) 465.
Cn appeal, or in any other dirsot preotleUiag, 660 *6 Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 6
allgfng that service Is suffioient, the appellants wowld be entitled to have, the declsfon set aside or reversed only If they oould show fundamenttil arror or harm and Fennesa t. First X?atIonal Bank (Clr. App., 1923) io=-T* 256 S. J4. 6341 Fenstermaker v'. City of San Antonio (Glt. App. 1926) sff. (0omm. App. Seo. B, 1927) 290 5. V. 532. 3ut mIsjoInder of oausea or parties doea not constitute fundenental error; it la not reached bT generel demurrer; It must ba raised by a plea In a&atement, on the oontrary, whloh Is qsited It not urged In 1ImIne. Bactoa v. Barmers' State Bspli t@mm. App., ;FeO. A, 1985) 276 6. It 177 an8 ea8aa aft&l therein.
Thus, oven t&cm& it shwld be.hei# ibit tba prepor pzocebure lmolu~ss a .sepaPa+e.hearIng ti to eaoh separate traot, the right to soah,a hclariag Is .nIred if mot pres4Med at t&s praper *Ms. **ton t, Pamam* " &ate 'Btbnk, 8apM.
'It Is 01ir eoneluaIan, tikerefoxe, that In Teuu in 8ingle 6Qnbmnatios proessbIng,~f separak a joinaer, ewaers af separate dI@tlnet tracts of land is pmmlmsi- bl..
TrustFag that tti6 opinion ~~111 ful&r snswsr rour question, and that rm will (~13 upoa as It a~ addItIona inr-ti0n ia m&reQ. lid a~b
A~PROVFDOcT 2% 1939
h,*w
ATTORNEY GIGNERAL OF TEXAR