Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS v. McNatt

SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS v. McNatt

337 S.W.2d 325, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2396
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 3, 1960
Docket15735
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 337 S.W.2d 325 (SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS v. McNatt) 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
SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS v. McNatt, 337 S.W.2d 325, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2396 (Tex. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

YOUNG, Justice.

On September 22, 1959 McNatt and others filed this suit in Hunt County to enjoin appellant Authority from exercising any powers of eminent domain as authorized by Art. 7880-126, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. (Acts of 1931, 42nd Legislature) on grounds of unconstitutionality, other landowners intervening. On hearing, a temporary injunction was granted, restraining defendant District from proceeding or taking any action to acquire the lands of appellees pursuant to Art. 7880-126, declaring said legislation *326 “void and unconstitutional for the reasons stated in plaintiffs’ petition” and pleas of intervention; the District duly appealing.

: The Sabine River Authority of Texas is a governmental agency created by Art. 8280-133, V.A.C.S.; at the present time engaged in acquiring lands within the Sabine River Water Shed and Tributaries for construction of reservoirs within the State of Texas for use by various cities. Appellees (plaintiffs and intervenors) owned certain lands which are necessary to construction of the Iron Bridge reservoir by the Authority; which project is now under construction insofar as the dam, outlet and impounding facilities are concerned and is nearing completion. The parties had earlier failed in efforts to agree on land values; whereupon the Authority had instituted various condemnation suits under Title 52, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 3264 et seq., by filing a petition with the County Judge of Hunt County, who appointed special 'commissioners but no hearings were had or awards made. About September 14,1959, the Authority by resolution had elected to adopt the procedure for condemnation outlined in Art. 7880-126 in lieu of the provisions of Title 52, Eminent Domain; thereby activating the instant suit; defendant on October 1, 1959 presenting a petition to District Judge Myers under authority of Art. 7880-126 seeking to set up ’the “tribunal”' there provided for, preliminary to a condemnation of these Hunt County lands by means of the latter Statute.

The Legislature purpose of Art. 7880-126 (Acts of- 1931) was' stated as fixing a more practical, economical and equitable procedure for condemnation by water control and improvement districts; having been enacted in lieu of Act of 1929 Legislature, Sec. 14 of which had been held unconstitutional . in White v. Maverick County Water Control and Improvement District, Tex.Com.App., 35 S.W.2d 107. Ways and means for - a more expeditious acquisition of land or interest therein by these Districts through condemnation suits have been the subject of considerable litigation. In 16 Tex.Jur. (Eminent Domain) p. 333, § 72, it is stated that:

“In the original Act of 1925 (RS Art. 7880-126, as originally enacted by Acts 1925, 39th Leg. RS p. 123, ch. 25, § 126), it was provided that all procedure with reference to condemnation, appeal, and payment should be in accord with the provisions of the general condemnation statute. In 1927, the legislature apparently made an attempt to amend this provision, but instead substituted for it a clause relating to an entirely different matter. (Act 1927, 40th Leg. 1st CS p. 496, ch. 107, § 19). In 1929, the provision was again amended, and this time the legislature outlined in great detail an entirely new proceeding for condemnations, to be administered by a board of commissioners of ap-praisement appointed by the district directors. (RS Art. 7880-126 as amended by Acts 1929, 41st Leg. p. 578, ch. 280, § 14). This procedure, ‘so tediously prescribed’ in the statute of 1929, was held to be violative of section 1 of article 11 of the Constitution by the Commission of Appeals in 1931. The Commission determined, however, that such districts could properly proceed under the provisions of the general condemnation statute. Subsequently, the legislature, in an enactment which recited that the effect of this decision was to ‘deny to districts the right to exercise the more practical economical and equitable procedure for condemnation intended,’ again amended the law, by giving the district directors the right to elect as to whether condemnation suits would be brought under the procedure prescribed by the general condemnation statute or under a modification of the special procedure hereinbefore referred to. (RS, as amended by Acts 1931, 42nd Leg. p. 466, ch. 275, § 3)”.

As sole point of appeal, Sabine River Authority asserts that the trial court erred •in holding Art. 7880-126, Acts of 1931, void *327 and unconstitutional on grounds stated in the pleadings of appellees and grant against it of temporary injunction; appellees on the other hand contending that Art. 7880-126 as amended did not cure the basic infirmities of procedure discussed in the White appeal; that the 1931 Act is an almost verbatim reproduction of the condemned 1929 Act and is just as violative of the Constitution as it was before. Appellees in reply brief attach a photocopy of the 1929 Act (41st Leg.) and in columns headed “1929” and “1931” presents material portions of each Act by way of comparison, viz.:

*328

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

Related

City of Dallas v. Rash
375 S.W.2d 502 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1964)
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Bradford
141 So. 2d 378 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1962)
SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS v. McNatt
342 S.W.2d 741 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
337 S.W.2d 325, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sabine-river-authority-of-texas-v-mcnatt-texapp-1960.