Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Horton

Court of Appeals of Texas

Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Horton

323 S.W.2d 656, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2379

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 9, 1959

DocketNo. 6258

StatusPublished

This text of 323 S.W.2d 656 (Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Horton) 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

Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Horton, 323 S.W.2d 656, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2379 (Tex. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

McNEILL, Justice.

This is a companion case to Sinclair Pipe Line Company v. Peters, Tex.Civ.App., 323 S.W.2d 651. The facts in all material particulars are similar and our opinion in that case controls this one, except the second paragraph of appellees’ plea in abatement in the present case asserts that appellant failed to make a bona fide effort to agree with appellees on the amount of damages before the petition for condemnation was filed. The second point or paragraph in the plea in abatement in the Peters case to the effect that the award had not been filed with the county judge is not in the present case. The statement of facts in the present case consists of the testimony of Austin Beach, appellant’s rights of way supervisor, and the easement granted by appellees to Texas Pipe Line Company, dated May 1, 1952, which is similar to the easement in the Peters case.

The only point not discussed in the Peters case is the point urged here that appellant failed to make a bona fide effort to agree with appellees as to the damages before the proceeding was instituted. This point cannot be supported for the reason that appellees offered no evidence at all on the point urged as they were required to do. McDougald v. First National Bank of Beaumont, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 145, by this court.

The order sustaining the plea in abatement is reversed and this cause is remanded.

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

McNEILL, Justice.

This is a companion case to Sinclair Pipe Line Company v. Peters, Tex.Civ.App., 323 S.W.2d 651. The facts in all material particulars are similar and our opinion in that case controls this one, except the second paragraph of appellees’ plea in abatement in the present case asserts that appellant failed to make a bona fide effort to agree with appellees on the amount of damages before the petition for condemnation was filed. The second point or paragraph in the plea in abatement in the Peters case to the effect that the award had not been filed with the county judge is not in the present case. The statement of facts in the present case consists of the testimony of Austin Beach, appellant’s rights of way supervisor, and the easement granted by appellees to Texas Pipe Line Company, dated May 1, 1952, which is similar to the easement in the Peters case.

The only point not discussed in the Peters case is the point urged here that appellant failed to make a bona fide effort to agree with appellees as to the damages before the proceeding was instituted. This point cannot be supported for the reason that appellees offered no evidence at all on the point urged as they were required to do. McDougald v. First National Bank of Beaumont, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 145, by this court.

The order sustaining the plea in abatement is reversed and this cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 S.W.2d 656, 1959 Tex. App. LEXIS 2379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-pipe-line-co-v-horton-texapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack