Keeling v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Keeling v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co.

240 S.W.2d 402, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 2093

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 24, 1951

DocketNo. 2967

StatusPublished

This text of 240 S.W.2d 402 (Keeling v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co.) 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

Keeling v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 240 S.W.2d 402, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 2093 (Tex. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

HALE, Justice.

The controlling question presented on this appeal is whether the legal effect of Art. 1970-326 of Vernon’s Tex.Civ.Stats., Acts 1941, 47th Leg., p. 553, ch. 350, was to vest original jurisdiction in matters of eminent domain in the District Court of Navarro County and the presiding judge thereof. If so, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed; otherwise, it should be reversed.

In their brief appellants say they “realize that their contention in this appeal is in direct conflict with Brazos River Transmission Electric Cooperative, Inc., v. Trip-lett, County Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S. W.2d 422, decided by this Court December 1, 1949.” By referring to the Triplett case it will be noted that we there relied in part upon our prior holding in the case of Rogers v. Graves, Tex.Civ.App., 221 S.W. 2d 399 (er. ref.) which involved the validity of the statute upon which the present appeal is based. We know of no reason why we should now change the holding previously made in either of these cases. For the reasons therein set forth we are of the opinion that the legal effect of Art. 1970-326 of Vernon’s Tex.Civ.Stats. was to divest the County Court of Navarro County of jurisdiction over matters of eminent domain and to vest such jurisdiction in the District Court of that county.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

HALE, Justice.

The controlling question presented on this appeal is whether the legal effect of Art. 1970-326 of Vernon’s Tex.Civ.Stats., Acts 1941, 47th Leg., p. 553, ch. 350, was to vest original jurisdiction in matters of eminent domain in the District Court of Navarro County and the presiding judge thereof. If so, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed; otherwise, it should be reversed.

In their brief appellants say they “realize that their contention in this appeal is in direct conflict with Brazos River Transmission Electric Cooperative, Inc., v. Trip-lett, County Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S. W.2d 422, decided by this Court December 1, 1949.” By referring to the Triplett case it will be noted that we there relied in part upon our prior holding in the case of Rogers v. Graves, Tex.Civ.App., 221 S.W. 2d 399 (er. ref.) which involved the validity of the statute upon which the present appeal is based. We know of no reason why we should now change the holding previously made in either of these cases. For the reasons therein set forth we are of the opinion that the legal effect of Art. 1970-326 of Vernon’s Tex.Civ.Stats. was to divest the County Court of Navarro County of jurisdiction over matters of eminent domain and to vest such jurisdiction in the District Court of that county.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.W.2d 402, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 2093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keeling-v-st-louis-southwestern-r-co-texapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack