Stevens v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.

169 S.W. 644, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 809
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 19, 1914
DocketNo. 241.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 169 S.W. 644 (Stevens v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. 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
Stevens v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 169 S.W. 644, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 809 (Tex. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinions

This was an action brought by appellants, Horace B. Stevens, Charles B. Stevens, and Z. T. White, against appellee, Galveston, Harrisburg San Antonio Railway Company The plaintiff sued in the alternative:

First. In the ordinary form of trespass to try title to recover a a undivided three-fourths interest in 21.4 acres of land in El Paso county, Tex., and to recover an undivided three-fourths interest of the northerly half of blocks Nos. 3, 10, 42, and the southerly half of blocks 8, 9, and 43, as said blocks are designated upon the map of the city of El Paso, made by Anson Mills, the line dividing said blocks in the northerly and southerly half being drawn parallel with Main street in said city.

Second. a. In the alternative to recover an undivided three-fourths interest as aforesaid in the 21.4 acres, plaintiffs alleging that their predecessors in estate conveyed the three-fourths interest in said 21.4 acres to Charles Crocker upon certain limitations, particularly that said real estate should be used exclusively for railroad depot grounds and railroad business purposes; that the freight and passenger depot to be built and used by the said Crocker or his assigns should be at a certain place designated, and if the said premises should cease to be used wholly for the purpose aforesaid, then they should revert to the grantors, their successors or assigns; that said land was deeded to the said Crocker that he should in turn convey the same to the defendant; that the said Crocker conveyed the premises to the defendant, railway company, in terms of said deed to him as per the mutual agreement, and that at the date of such conveyance to the said Crocker, Thomas T. Gantt and David Rankin were the owners seised as of fee for several hundred acres of land in said city; that the said deed was made to said Crocker without further consideration than the prospective enhancement in value of said other lands by the use of such land as conveyed as railroad depot grounds and for railroad business purposes; that on or about January 1, 1910, the defendant had moved its passenger depot from the designated place, and had ceased to use said premises exclusively for railroad depot grounds and for railroad business purposes, alleging in the petition certain instances of cessation.

b. To recover an undivided three-fourths interest in the half blocks aforesaid, averring that their predecessors in estate conveyed said half blocks to defendant, railroad company, to be used by it and its successors so long as the same should be used as a railroad right of way, and, if not so used, should revert to the grantors; that defendant had abandoned the use of said half blocks as a railroad right of way, and were using them for purposes inconsistent with their use as a railroad right of way, alleging instances of such abandonment and inconsistent uses.

c. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant was claiming to be the absolute owner of *Page 646 both the premises aforesaid, subject to no limitation, restriction, or condition whatsoever, and prayed that in event the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover said undivided interest of both of said premises, then that the right of plaintiffs under such restrictions, limitations, and conditions be established and defendant be decreed to hold said premises subject to such restrictions, limitations, and conditions.

d. W. W. Mills and his wife, Mary H. Mills, Philip Hague, James P. Hague, W. M. Coldwell, Clara Hague, Aileen Hague, Judyn Hague, Flora Hague, Mrs. Catherine Laubach and husband, H. L. Laubach, Mrs. Lillian Corcoran and husband, Thomas Corcoran, as heirs and representatives of James P. Hague, deceased, and Flora E. Hague, his wife, deceased, intervened in the suit, and claimed an undivided one-eighth interest not claimed by plaintiffs in the 21.4 acres.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, the five and ten year statute of limitation, denied it had abandoned the premises for railroad purposes, averred that it had always used them for railroad purposes and was still doing so, and that the same were necessary to defendant for railroad purposes, and that the plaintiffs and interveners are estopped by deed to claim any rights sought to be enforced by them in this action, because, it appeared from plaintiff's pleadings that their alleged rights are claimed through and under the said Gantt and Rankin, so far as the original plaintiffs are concerned and through W. W. Mills and Jas. P. Hague, so far as the interveners are concerned; that the said Gantt and Rankin conveyed to Charles Crocker under an agreement that he in turn, convey said land to defendant for railway purposes; that W. W. Mills and James P. Hague did convey said land to defendant for railway purposes; that both plaintiffs and interveners are estopped from maintaining that those through whom they derived their alleged rights in said property by the respective deeds referred to conveyed more land for railway purposes than was, is or may become necessary for said railway purposes in the future. Defendant further alleged in its answer that it built its passenger and freight depots upon the lands conveyed, constructed its tracks and other necessary improvements thereon in the year 1881, and has continuously, since that date, up to the present time, used said property for railway purposes, as expressed in the conditions of the respective deeds, with the consent of the city council and of the grantors executing said deeds, without objection or protest, but with the knowledge and acquiescence of plaintiffs and interveners; that at no time had said plaintiffs and interveners, or either of them, asserted any claim of forfeiture, on the ground that the use of said property was not sufficiently complete, or that the use of said lands and every part thereof was not in compliance with the conditions contained in said deeds; that if any cause of forfeiture ever existed, the same has been waived and the plaintiffs and interveners are now estopped from asserting the same. Defendant also filed a cross-action against plaintiffs and interveners to have a perfect, fee-simple title in said premises decreed to be vested in it, and to have its title to said premises established and quieted.

The case was tried before the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs and interveners for all of the premises, quieted and established defendant's title thereto, and canceled plaintiffs' and interveners' claim to said premises as being a cloud upon the defendant's rightful title. The plaintiffs and interveners have appealed from the judgment entered to this court.

The conclusions of fact found by the trial court are as follows:

"First. I find that W. W. Mills and J. P. Hague did on, to wit, the 9th day of April, 1881, execute and deliver to the defendant, Galveston, Harrisburg San Antonio Railway Company, the deed described in and attached to the interveners' petition, conveying a one-eighth undivided interest in the 21.4-acre tract of land involved in this suit which interest in said tract of land the said W. W. Mills and J. P. Hague owned at the time when the deed was executed.

"Second. I further find that the real consideration in the execution of said deed was that said W. W. Mills and J. P. Hague at the time of executing said deed to the defendant company owned other property near and contiguous to said tract of land, and the probability that such other land would be enhanced in value by the defendant company putting the said 21.4-acre tract of land to its railway uses mentioned in said deed would enhance the value of such other property belonging to J. P. Hague and W. W.

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

Related

Akasu v. Power
91 N.E.2d 224 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Oklahoma City v. Wainwright
1947 OK 317 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1947)
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. White
132 S.W.2d 807 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1939)
Dolby v. State Highway Commissioner
278 N.W. 694 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Texas Rural Communities v. Avary
113 S.W.2d 597 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Brightwell v. International-Great Northern R.
41 S.W.2d 319 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Fort Worth Gas Co. v. Latex Oil & Gas Co.
299 S.W. 705 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Community of Priests of St. Basil v. Byrne
255 S.W. 601 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1923)
Halpin v. Rural Agricultural School District No. 9
194 N.W. 1005 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Stevens v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.
212 S.W. 639 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1919)
Des Moines City Railway Co. v. City of Des Moines
183 Iowa 1261 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 S.W. 644, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-galveston-h-s-a-ry-co-texapp-1914.