Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Maxwell v. Maddox

Maxwell v. Maddox

362 S.W.2d 147, 1962 Tex. App. LEXIS 1942
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 7, 1962
DocketNo. 11034
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 362 S.W.2d 147 (Maxwell v. Maddox) 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
Maxwell v. Maddox, 362 S.W.2d 147, 1962 Tex. App. LEXIS 1942 (Tex. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

ARCHER, Chief Justice.

This is a suit in trespass to try title brought by appellees against appellant. The matter in controversy between the parties is whether a strip approximately twenty (20) feet in width along the entire west side of appellees’ property is a public road or street by virtue of an implied common law dedication. The Trial Court, without the intervention of a jury, found that the strip of land in controversy was not a public street and entered judgment for appel-lees.

The appeal is based on four points assigned as error by the court in failing to find that the strip of land was a public road or street by virtue of a common law dedication, in finding that the church did not dedicate the strip to the City of Richardson as a public street, that the strip is not a public thoroughfare, that the church has title to the strip free of all dedications of every nature, that neither appellant nor the public has any right to use the strip, and that the church is entitled to exclusive use of the strip because the evidence shows that there has been an implied common law dedication of the strip as a public road or street by the appellees.

The third point is that the findings are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust; and finally that there is no evidence to support the findings and judgment of the court, in that the appellant and the public are not bound by private arrangements between appellees and Messrs. Cas-sidy and Holley, and the court erred in permitting witnesses Green, Maddox and Wallace to testify that they did not intend to dedicate the strip as a public street or road.

We believe that the strip of land in controversy, sometimes called Cliff Lane, and at other times called Church or Cliff Street, was a public road or street by virtue of an implied common law dedication and that the Trial Court erred in not so holding and finding and we reverse and render judgment for the appellant.

We are inserting herein a map showing portions of the church property, the entire street area, and the property on the western side of the street or road known as the James, Holley and Cassidy lots. There is also shown the property now owned by appellant Maxwell.

[149]*149

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

Related

Maddox v. Maxwell
369 S.W.2d 343 (Texas Supreme Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
362 S.W.2d 147, 1962 Tex. App. LEXIS 1942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-maddox-texapp-1962.