Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Armstrong v. City of Houston

Armstrong v. City of Houston

272 S.W.2d 556, 1954 Tex. App. LEXIS 2182
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 21, 1954
Docket12702
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 272 S.W.2d 556 (Armstrong v. City of Houston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armstrong v. City of Houston, 272 S.W.2d 556, 1954 Tex. App. LEXIS 2182 (Tex. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinions

CODY, Justice.

This is a condemnation suit brought by the City of Houston in the County Court at Law of Harris County against appellants and some hundred and seventy-five other defendants. The property sought to be condemned forms a link in State Highway No. 59 and lies in the Collins Tract Addition out of the J. S. Collins Survey. The City alleged in substance that there is such an irreconcilable conflict in the title, boundaries and locations of the various tracts involved that the City could not safely agree with any of the defendants as claimants without being compelled to take the risk of paying twice or more for the same right of way.

The J. S. Collins Survey was patented to his assignee, Charles B. Stewart, on March 1, 1841. The northern boundary of the Survey is 2,430 varas; the western boundary thereof is 1,206 varas. The eastern boundary is 2,956 varas. Stewart conveyed to Darius Gregg what purported to be a tract of 259 acres out of the J. S. Collins Survey, which tract subsequently ■became the “Collins Tract Addition.” The description of this 259 acres began in the northeast corner of the Collins Survey, and runs west 1,364 varas; the next call is what has caused all the trouble. This next call is for 1,365½ varas south. As noted above, the west boundary of the Survey was but 1,206 varas. In other words, the grantor’s field notes covered a strip 159½ varas wide in the Samuel Harris Survey, which joins the J. S. Collins Survey on the south. Without tracing the title further, it is sufficient to state that all of the lots and blocks in the Addition have been sold with reference to the plat of said Addition as the same was recorded in the deed records of Harris County on June 14, 1862. A copy of said plat is hereto attached designated as Appendix “A” (plaintiffs’ exhibit No. 29).

As designated on the plat, the outside street on the north of the Addition is Adams Street. On the ground, the outside street on the north of the Addition is called Kelley Street. The evidence in the case identifies Adams Street of the plat as practically being Kelley Street on the ground. As designated on the plat, the outside street on the East of the Addition is York Street. The evidence identifies for practical purposes the street which is now called Hirsch with York Street of the plat. Labadie Street is the outside street of the Addition on the south as shown on the plat, and Labadie Street is the name of the outside street on the south of the Addition, as located on the ground. The City represents here that none of the interior streets shown on the plat of the Addition have been laid out on the ground. And it is obvious from the plat that Hunting Bayou, which is a few hundred feet north of Labadie Street, is not shown on the plat. As stated above, the Addition as platted is 259 acres. The Addition as located on the ground is surrounded by other additions which are fully developed. And said Addition- as located upon the ground contains only about 217 acres. That is to say, the Addition as located on the ground is some 42 acres less than the Addition as platted. It is, therefore, obvious that the lots and blocks of the Addition, as platted, cannot be fitted into the Addition as located on the ground, so as to give to each lot and block its full dimensions, as platted.

The City in its petition described the land which it sought to have condemned, out of the Collins Tract Addition, as consisting of five tracts. Three of said tracts sought to be condemned were tracts to be used for drainage, and two of the tracts were to be used for the Highway-proper. We have attached hereto a copy of the sketch which shows the five tracts to be condemned, which we have designated Appendix “B” (plaintiffs’ exhibit No. 13).

[558]*558 zjWynNMj0uBoJd2IPB

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. Ray
886 S.W.2d 817 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Kansas University Endowment Ass'n v. King
350 S.W.2d 11 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Lubbering v. Ellison
342 S.W.2d 796 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1961)
King v. Kansas University Endowment Ass'n
337 S.W.2d 295 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
City of Houston v. Culmore
278 S.W.2d 825 (Texas Supreme Court, 1955)
Armstrong v. City of Houston
272 S.W.2d 556 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 S.W.2d 556, 1954 Tex. App. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-city-of-houston-texapp-1954.