Home/Texas Supreme Court/Bass v. Taylor

Bass v. Taylor

90 S.W.2d 811, 126 Tex. 522, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 250
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 5, 1936
DocketNo. 6314.
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 90 S.W.2d 811 (Bass v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bass v. Taylor, 90 S.W.2d 811, 126 Tex. 522, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 250 (Tex. 1936).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice CURETON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion, affirming the judgment of the trial court (50 S. W. (2d) 853), has made a statement of this case sufficient for the purposes of this opinion, and we shall not attempt a complete statement of the facts and issues. We do append hereto, however, a reproduction of a portion of the map which accompanies the record. The map is entirely too large for us to reproduce as a whole, but that part which we do attach is sufficient for a proper conception of the facts which gave rise to the legal questions here involved.

The locus of the controversy is in the valley of Wilson Creek, in Collin County. It lies between Wilson Creek and the East Fort of the Trinity River, but a short distance above their junction. Both streams rise several miles to the north or northwest, with a broad divide or interfluve between their valleys, but as the streams flow toward their junction point the valleys approach until on reaching the place of controversy here their interfluve has in effect disappeared, leaving only a narrow divide, broken at intervals by gaps, opened up by the corrasive effect of the flood waters of the streams through which the overflow waters of Wilson Creek leave their own valley and pass into that of the Trinity. The plaintiffs in error were constructing a levee, or levees, connecting up the remnants-of this broken divide, for the purpose of confining the overflow waters of Wilson Creek to its own valley, and preventing them from passing into the valley of the Trinity and onto their land, when this suit was filed. Wilson Creek is indicated by the black lines shown on the map, between which we ourselves have written the words “Wilson Creek.” On the southern bank of this stream levees are indicated by rather broad white lines between black bachure marks. Similar levees are also shown on the northern side of the creek, as will be observed on the map. Road embankments are designated and shown in broad white lines. On the northern side of the stream, and some distance from it, will be seen white lines, which, as shown on the map, indicate hills or high ground. The levees to which we have previously referred are marked on the map “Levee,” and will be readily observable. Running from a point at or-near blocks marked “Barn” and “House” on the northern side of Wilson Creek, immediately adjacent to a slough, and run *526 ning in a southeasterly direction, is a small white line, marked “Proposed Levee.” Just where this proposed levee terminates we are not able to state from the record before us, nor it is necessary to do so for the purposes of this opinion, although the evidence shows it to be about 1600 feet in length. It will be seen that this proposed levee extends from the square marked “Barn” across an old slough to a hill, enclosed by white lines and marked “Hill Line,” and from which there runs a levee to the north bank of Wilson Creek. None of the constructions marked “Levee” were made by the plaintiffs in error. Some of the levees at least were made by the defendants in error, or their predecessors in title. It is obvious from an examination of the map that the defendants in error, or their predecessors in title, had protected their lands lying south and north of Wilson Creek from the overflow waters of the creek. It is plain, also, that the effect of the levee running from the hill (indicated by the words “Hill Line”) in a westerly direction, previously mentioned, had the effect of protecting the Wallis and other lands southeast of it, and concentrating the flood waters of Wilson Creek, which came out of that stream from its north side, and forcing these waters through the gap between the hill on which the barn and house are located and the hill immediately southeast thereof, and observable from the small white line to which we have referred as being drawn to represent a part of the proposed levee of the plaintiffs in error. That the system of levees constructed by the defendants in error, or their predecessors in title, and the “levee” running from the hill line just above referred to, had the necessary effect of throwing a large volume of water onto the lands of plaintiffs in error, which would not have passed over same but for the construction of the levees, there can be no doubt. In fact, in response to Special Issue No. 3, which is copied in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals (50 S. W. (2d) 854), the jury found that the plaintiffs (defendants in error), or some of them, had constructed upon their respective premises levees which in flood time divert the flood waters from Wilson Creek and cause the same to flow upon the lands of plaintiff in error in greater volume than would have flowed upon same if said levee, or levees, had not been built.

*525

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

Related

In Re Upstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs v. United States
Federal Claims, 2018
In Re Adjudication of Water Rights of the Lower Guadalupe River Segment
730 S.W.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Stoner v. City of Dallas
392 S.W.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Red Lake Fishing & Hunting Club v. Burleson
219 S.W.2d 115 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)
City of Austin v. Howard
158 S.W.2d 556 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Coleman v. Wright
155 S.W.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 S.W.2d 811, 126 Tex. 522, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bass-v-taylor-tex-1936.