Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN /
Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 2
our lnveetigation of authorities
..- disolosed
- that
fn a large number of states snob a Jornaer or separare
owners 01 separate and distinct parcels of land, in a
sing&a cond~emnation prooeeding, is provided for br statute.
Sea hailroad V. Christy, 92 Ill. 339; Barton v. Eleotrlo
Railway, 220 Ill. 99; Taooma v. Bonell, 58 lash. 595, 109
P. 60; Friedenwald v. Mayor of Baltimore, 94 lid. 116.
Other states, like Texas,.do not by statute
speoltlaallyprwfde tar the joinder of separate owner8 ei
separate tract8 oi lend In a single oondematlon preoeedln&
The courts in two euoh states, Xa8aaoBusetts and Ohio, wla%eh
iOllow the oommon lew syeite%O? practice, alearly permit 8a0B
Joinder erea In tha absenoe,oi stlohstatutory qutbority.
See City of Springfield'I.Sleeper, ll6 Mass. 589; Barton
T. Wigglesworth,119 Bare. S368~Qlesy t. Railroad, 4 QUO
St. 308.
A rsooguized text writer on safnent bmai* atate8
the rule to be aa iollowsr
"Sa the abeenoo of any expresrr~
statatarf
prorl~loa Ltrould 8eeivta re8t ia ,M%edl8ore-
tlon of the court whether diatinot alalms to?
dartwageby the same work d-1 improvementrrhomld
be tried aopamtely or togathor". E Lewis on
Eminent DomaIn ll5, hation 666.
In Texa8 the general stat6ties whloh @orem the
exerofss ofthe pewer OS maiaerrt demaia are Artloles
5~664%91, inoluslte, being Title 56, Other titlea rhloh
we will not list here prwl%e for the ereroise of the pewer
or eminent demaln br epeaifia bodies. By Artiale 6694& it
is prorfded that the Hi&war G~ission in the oondaaarihion
of laed for highna purposes shall foll#w tb proaedure set
out ia Title B2. 5he faot that this road has been deslgp
nated as a highway by the Highway doralseionplaces these
proaeedlngswithin the provisions of Artlale 8694% Fer the
purpose of this dlsauseion, it is neaessary for us to exe~%e
only three of the artlollss under Title SE.
Among other thhga, Art.loleSe64 provides for an
Honorable R. A. Rarton, Paga 3
attempt to agree with the landowner on the amount or
damages ; appliaation to the oounty judge upon failure to
agree on damages; appointment by the county jadee of three
special oommissionera to asaess damages; aud esrvloe of
notioe on the landownera of the time and plaoe of ths
hearing, either personally or by publioatlon. ‘trader Arti-
elk 3265, the Legislature has provided for the method to
be rollowed~ in assessing the damages. q’he proaedure to be
followed in appealing from damages and oompensatlon as-
sessed by the emwissloners is provided in Artlale 3266.
OUT courts have often pointed oat that s&as tke
powet of om%nsnt domsla le in derogation ot the aoma
rl&t, statutes waiah govern Its areroise ,arato bs atrlot3j
eoawtrasd and are not to be extended beFond their plain
provlsiQns. Van Ya~kenburgh v. Ford (Giv. App. Galrestan,
lSl8), 209 8. W. SO4j aifimed (Gwma. App. Sea. %, 192X),
22B 8. 1. 3.941XaIarerbeklmaT. &lo 109 Tex. 106, 204 8.W.
use fl8l8); Oi3@ f. ztexar aowntrfeir. 4p. M95). 23 B.W.
&a, al88, 2 Dill on Bukisipal t?orporat1oa8, 5ao.
:2-
Prooedur%l 8tetut68 or thl# nature ara seldom
80 mmprehuaat+e aa to rssolrs e+ey question that say
arisu in regard to their applirrattcm,and it oftmi bemaea
aeeeasery to rseort to othar aathority to dettmalme mathr8
Rat speoifioally aavers& by tihem.
ConQemnatloa preoeedlng8Pabar Title 8,2, in
thalr earl7 phases spa far as drtermluat,ion of the land-
owner*e damagua is ~onoernud, bear i&1%&t rerramblanoe
to trfal 0r otbar 68uilel. After rafiure to agree oa
daamgesthe untlre praowdzSg8 PM &errfad oa bafe~a a
faot-finding,quasi-Jwdiaialbodr eonalsting,of ttuee aom-
miemloneru, who hear erlaenoe and asasss the damages.
The werds *plaintffP aad %lefemlantw at thin
stage oan ba ased only in an auaommtmand liberal seasa, for
the plaintlih ceompla3m or nothlng,iand the defendant de-
afes aa past or thraataaedwrong, but both partias are
astora, ohs to aaquire title, the other to @et as larga
compansation as he aan. 15 Am. Zw.r.96S. Sea. 520.
Hnmwaus deelsione have ~aa``analo~lee to pro-
Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 4
acedings In our courts and have daolared that this special
tribunal is governed by ths ordbnary rules of law and equity
controlling the trial of oausea. Jones v. Xlssouri, Kansas
and Taxae Railroad (Cir. Ap ., Dallas 1929) 14 S. W. (2d)
357, atf. (Comm. App., 1930lp 24 S. W. (26) 366; Davidson
y. Railroad (Clr. App., 1902! 57 S. W. 1093~2$o```` z;,,,
Small (MT. App. F‘t.Worth, 1930) 2S S, vi.
rsfuaed.
Lfbaral rule5 or joinder anaoanaed By ear oeurta
apply with *pa@ ig%m ta them trtbugala. Ibaoe, t&a at-
tea&tat atnra plaoad by ear oourta on eroidanoe af multi-
pllsit~ of aq&W must ba otiaaidarad.In ardor to are&d
rultipl:oitJ or suits. our reurtr shareallowad litiganta
great latitude in'Mltrw dirrerm demand8 * a al
suit, and ire'quaqtlTr, diatlaat *au386 hmwo baan pUZP
to be joined vhaa aueh jolade* was not Miapaaaabla.
&d
1 Tar, JW,. ,487,,800.91. Bae also aor f. Cmr, 7S mx.
196, 11 SC 1. lB&$ Craddook 7. Geodria, 9 4 hr. 678181
Hert%-
authority iOr tlrsaeatamplatod jeiadar, tn wiaw at tiha
re0t that aoadamti?r-plaIntIffUrf$f#S
the am 6p00iri6 ri&t
cr&eat eaoh evaav bet we amtd net rely ox6lealte~ en thslr
geaeral oeatrxt~
*&fnarily whara,oo~aolidatienef oauaea is pax-
mltted, joiad%r vi oaaaea aamet be obje&l``abh, aad tlati
la aspoolally tma vhan ooluellaatioa is panrittad deapfte
pretaat ef *as of *ha litiganta,
In a mms%%t 6aaa deolded by tha Wmaia6f06 of
A~paala, appellPant*asxoaptionto the oenae2idatlon a?
aererrl diatlnot actions agalaat earersl separate ewaara or
separate and distisat traota et land was evwruLed. Uilliaaa
6t al 1. Headarson 00-t Leres reremeat Dfstriot iQe.3
(Ccnnm.Appp.Sea. 38,19553 90 9. 81.
%d, as. uhilo lb is
tree that tha oourt aited Artiola 7995, whioh SpeolriOally
provides rep aazohoonaolidatlen, 'wa bellera t&a rollewWg
laaguage bl Taatlos Short la auffiolentlybread to OQY~F
oonaolldatlm sad joiader la ~tiharooridmatlea proooediqga,
and that It is, at laaat, Indioativeei the attitude Of the
present aeurtir
Honorable B. A. Esrton, Page 5
"The trial judge, In the exercise of his
dlsoretion, oonaolldated the suits. The mite
were tried bafors the court without a jury and
there Is nothing in this reoord to show that any
harm hes been done the litigant by aonsolidatlng
these suite. This holding is in line with the
rule announoed by the decisions that It la tha
publio pelioy of this state to avoid a multi-
plloit~ of aulta~w
A startherindloatleathat our oenrts do net ra-
gaxd the Iclinsnt
D0aal.a 6tatatsa as beisg inflaxlbla and
all-inolaaito,is tho fellewing langusga in Davidson f.
Bailxead, aumt
*J&may atataa thu right to make eppeam
0k&166646 parthi %a oettSorred br atatuta.~ WIQ
it aagu fe us that this right mriata ln the a&-
nenoe or apaaial prevision,end is a nuouaoa~
fnoidaa$ to the right to oendema, fer it neul4 be
idle ~to oqUer the pmmr to omsUamn aad at tha
66mo tira 60 restriot a rf%pt as to dear thu &all-
read Cs a fu&gsentrhfsh would pmteot ita
pssaeaeien and pr&eet it qgainet a dot&lo ru-
ow~s~; aad our atetut-uegevurnhg the praoeedisg
wInanthu ebjeot 00 be la o eq )iia hisa dceruidarad
are ralz1.yauaoaptible of tha oonrrtraatioa we
hare plaae4 epen thu.*
Approa&iing tha problem trm anethw ax@., lat
ma take into aeoowt the fast that a mejeritf, ii aet all,
of the landowners sited by pablloationnilX net appear at the
hearing fox! eaaussaiant of dsmagaa and ooapeaaatlea, aad
that thuy will tall to appeal from tha desisle~a or tha ma-
mlseienerawithin the wquiatto ten days pmvidod .iaArtiolo
3266. Such owners would soquiw the atatwa of derondaata
against rhea a default jad6auat had been taken, ahmu upon
the expiration of that time, the ooanty jadgs ia reqaimd to
szoE; deQiSiO6 0r the oemmissio3ers se a judgmentOS
Binolalr T. City or Dallas (Qir. App. Uaee, 1OSlL),
445 S. W/(&d) 465.
Cn appeal, or in any other dirsot preotleUiag, 660
Honorable R. A. Barton, Page 6
allgfng that service Is suffioient, the appellants wowld
be entitled to have, the declsfon set aside or reversed
only If they oould show fundamenttil arror or harm and
io=-T* Fennesa t. First X?atIonal Bank (Clr. App., 1923)
256 S. J4. 6341 Fenstermaker v'. City of San Antonio (Glt.
App. 1926) sff. (0omm. App. Seo. B, 1927) 290 5. V. 532.
3ut mIsjoInder of oausea or parties doea not constitute
fundenental error; it la not reached bT generel demurrer;
on the oontrary, It must ba raised by a plea In a&atement,
whloh Is qsited It not urged In 1ImIne. Bactoa v. Barmers'
State Bsplit@mm. App., ;FeO. A, 1985) 276 6. It 177 an8
ea8aa aft&l therein.
Thus, oven t&cm& it shwld be.hei# ibit tba
prepor pzocebure lmolu~ss a .sepaPa+e.hearIng ti to eaoh
separate traot, the right to soah,a hclariag Is .nIred
if mot pres4Med at t&s praper *Ms. **ton t, Pamam* "
&ate 'Btbnk, 8apM.
'It Is 01ireoneluaIan,tikerefoxe,
that In Teuu
a joinaer, in a 8ingle 6Qnbmnatios proessbIng,~fseparak
ewaers af separate and dI@tlnet tractsof land is pmmlmsi-
bl..
TrustFag that tti6 opinion ``111 ful&r snswsr rour
question, and that rm will (~13 upoa as It a~ addItIona
inr-ti0n ia m&reQ. lid a~b
A~PROVFDOcT 2% 1939
h,*w
ATTORNEY GIGNERALOF TEXAR