Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/City of Dallas v. Leake

City of Dallas v. Leake

300 S.W.2d 135, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 1627
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 15, 1957
Docket15217
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 300 S.W.2d 135 (City of Dallas v. Leake) 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
City of Dallas v. Leake, 300 S.W.2d 135, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 1627 (Tex. Ct. App. 1957).

Opinion

DIXON, Chief Justice.

This suit in trespass to try title was filed by Sarah H. Leake and others against the City of Dallas and Hart Investment Company, a corporation. Plaintiffs sued for title and possession of a strip of land 32 feet wide adjacent to a line where the west track of the Houston & Texas Central Railway formerly lay, which strip of land runs a distance of one city block between Elm Street and Pacific Avenue in Dallas, Texas. The city claims the land became part of a street known as North Central Avenue. As the interests of plaintiffs and Hart Investment Company proved not to *138 be adverse, the latter party aligned itself with the plaintiffs.

The case was tried to a jury, which returned answers favorable to plaintiffs and Hart Investment Company. The court rendered judgment based on the jury verdict. Only the City of Dallas has appealed.

The common source of title was shown to be Williams and Hindman, who prior to April 22, 1897 owned Block 148, City of Dallas, which included the strip of land in controversy.

Claim of City of Dallas

The City of Dallas claims fee simple title to the 32-foot strip in question through the following chain of title:

(1) By deed dated April 22, 1897, Williams and Hindman conveyed to Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company a part of their Block 148 in the City of Dallas, the part conveyed being the 32-foot strip of land in controversy. This instrument is unusual. It was signed by both grantors and grantee. As its proper interpretation and legal effect are subjects of controversy in this case, we here copy material parts of it:

“Know All Men By These Presents: That we, W. L. Williams, and Mrs. F. M. .Hindman, joined by her husband, Jas. R. Hindman, in consideration of the building and maintaining of a new.and permanent brick or stone passenger depot at the crossing of the Houston and Texas Central and Texas and Pacific Railroads in the .southeast angle of said roads and near the junction thereof by the Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company, or by said Company in connection with the said Texas :and Pacific Railroad Company, during the year .1897, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and for other considerations hereinafter mentioned, do by these presents grant and convey and set apart for the use of said Houston and Texas Central, Railroad Company and said Texas and Pacific Railroad Company, and for use as a sidewalk for foot passengers for the benefit of said railroads and ourselves jointly, the following described lot, tract or parcel of land, to-wit: (here follows the description of the 32-foot strip of land).
“To Have And To Hold unto the said •Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company and to the said Texas and Pacific Railroad Company, their successors and assigns and ourselves, our heirs and assigns jointly for the permanent use of said parties for the purpose aforesaid forever.
“It is understood, however, that that portion of the land above described which is leased for the year, 1897, shall continue in the use and occupancy of our tenants until the first day of January, 1898, when we obligate ourselves to clear the same by removing all buildings and platforms as soon as possible, and the said Railroad Companies as a further consideration for the grant herein made agree and bind themselves to fill in the land hereinbefore described with sand and gravel, and to construct a good substantial gravel platform, upon a level with the track of the said Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company, as soon as practicable after said land shall be cleared of the houses, etc., for that purpose.
“It is further understood that the ground herein granted is to be used for persons passing on foot and for the use of trucks, 'and other vehicles drawn by hand for the purpose of transferring baggage, express and mail matter, but in no event shall the same be used by vehicles drawn by electricity or other means than hand power.
‘'And we further obligate ourselves to prevent any encroachments by the erection of sheds, platforms, fruit stands or other structures upon the land herein described; provided however, that the right to display and exhibit for sale goods, wares and merchandise upon' a space three feet wide along the entire western boundary of the tract of land herein granted, is hereby reserved to us, our heirs and assigns.” (Emphasis ours.)

*139 (2) On August 30, 1898, W. L. Williams executed an instrument including a plat-sub-dividing Block 148 within the City of Dallas. Appellant claims that this map and plat had the effect of dedicating the 32-foot strip as a street. As this plat is al-;-so a subject of controversy in this suit,,wéí present a copy of it:

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

Related

John A. Lance, Debra L. Lance, F.D. Franks and Helen Franks v. Judith and Terry Robinson, Gary and Brenda Fest, Virginia Gray and Butch Townsend
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Cooper v. United States
779 F. Supp. 833 (E.D. North Carolina, 1991)
Smith v. Morris and Co.
694 S.W.2d 37 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Aransas County v. Reif
532 S.W.2d 131 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Copeland v. City of Dallas
454 S.W.2d 279 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Riley v. Brown
452 S.W.2d 548 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. The City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation
374 F.2d 683 (Tenth Circuit, 1967)
City of Plano v. Reed
392 S.W.2d 197 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Ginther v. Bammel
336 S.W.2d 759 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Meek v. Bower
333 S.W.2d 175 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
City of Dallas v. Crow
326 S.W.2d 192 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 S.W.2d 135, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 1627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-dallas-v-leake-texapp-1957.