Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

I 547
I ! : -,G.f.21-q
\ “,‘T,“.;.
I-----
.’ __ -.-..t
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY G ERAL OF TEXAS
?I
AUSTIN
Oplnlon lo. o-6921 n
wo are in ?a qurrt sor aa oplnlcn
of thir dopartmont on Ii. quota from pur
utter of roquort a8
iolnlty of the
lrod thr grade of
foot of the up fra
feet to 8.7 fed. In
defr m th alBd OS
o r thof the Vyo from
to 8.7 feat, but upcn
the locatloa of tho rootlmi of
011 •~ the railroad location la
our bettor rmdorrtanding of tho
lIt~&MI&MM br tho rallroadr that tho ralm-
lng of tho grad0 of our hl@vq nrultod In tho ontrrp-
ping of vator frm rtorr tldor, and im tholr roturn
to tho bars to rueb lxtbnt that tholr t-racks, rhloh are
at l la •ioai~ of 6.y hot (~MO or nil), lm
lnundnkd afkr rtomr for conrldorably longor porlodr
than vaa tho -80 rhon tho llorrtlon of tho hlghvq vu
lpproxlmatolr the IUO l tho baro of ml1 llemtlon.
romblo 0. C. Orsor, psgv 2
911 laglnooro ia tho Dopartaont whobavo mdo ob-
romtlonr and ltudlo8 of thlr rltuatloa an la agroo-
mat tbat,
ll. The arm of the opoalagr bola tho bare
of nil llomtlon hm k.a nduood to suoh an ox-
tont that the tnoks rlll k wdor VatoF for OaI-
sldolrbl~ loagor pmlodr tlna ~8 the oa80 prior
to tho lnauguntloa of tho lb o voprojootj &rid
rondltlan hr dolamd, aad oaa bo
‘2. Thlr
lxpootod and doleT operrtloer of tho
to hupor
rrllmd oapaalor a fto r 8to m8, aad by lOW of
loagor lnuadatloa, laoma tho daugo to tholr
oabuboat and ballast.
'Both rrllmeds flrrt rou&t rodromr ln tho fom of
lnorwrla& oponlangs through our oabuhoat and rrlring
tholr gndo llnor to utoh oura. Tboy have fInally
thol gndo llaor nlrod
WY% 0 0 lwovor*
on 0 7.5 foot
to aaaopt -9
ba80 0 aelf. The tttor
rohro la muoh 1088 lrpo~lvo thaa providingtho addi-
tional oponlngr. &glaoon of tho ?ubllo Rords Admln-
lstmtlon Uro lgnod to pertlalpato vlth thlr Dopart-
vent in pqlng tho’aort of rel~lng those rrllrmd gradon.
‘Under tho hat8 a8 horoln above outllnod, vi11 you
ploaro sdtlro w
9. What tho llabllltr of thlr Dsportaoat 18
for lIdltlona1 or rggrwatod damgo vbloh uy ro-
suit to tho rallrordr by roa8oa OS our ml808 in
grrdo j and
-2. The proprlotr, a8 roll a8 tho lop1 au-
thority of this Doprrtunt to porfom work on tho
mllrmd right of vay vhlah 18 purolr non-hlghvq
in ohnotor.”
It 18 roll rottlod that tho dorlg&mtloa,loaatlon, rrloca-
blon, ooastruotloa, nooastruotloa md uiatonanoo of hlghvayr by
thhr8kto Hlghva D8jmrtmoat of tom8, m &8lalrtntl*o 8t8to lgoncy,
ls 8 orormontaI runatloa. Robblar “8 Llaortono Countr, 2$6S; Y.
151 lLMn “8. Slaglotary, 12 8. v. (2d) 1501 brook8 “8.
b b. V. (2d) 5341 Jlortla ~8. tit&o, 88 8. w. (26) 131~ B~uhknaa;8.
to, 8g 8. Y. (2d) 2391 Povoll vs.: 8tato of Texan, 118 8. V. (24)
.
;.:
:3
gaorabl. D. C. Orear, page 3
ThO CeSe Of II. K. & t. Rx, CO. VS. Rookvail County Lo.08
__/ . - -
DiSt?iot, _.Vol. - 297 S. v., pago- ?t 80q,eNA~nmae Goyrtyof~ TOILS,
br Judge 0010 Qmor, ~88 a condomnation suit braught br Rockvall
County &VOO Im rovoaont Dl8trlct No. 3 l lIn8t tho Ilatr Railroad,
the facts of vh s ch l ra wry volu81Inou8. f t 18 quite slmllar in
prticIple to the fectuel rituatlon vlth vhlcb you lr0 canfronted.
It 18 UIUlOCO88U'~ t0 St&t0 the f8atS Of thrt C4l80, ~81l¶COit I8
lvsilrbl0, lxCOpt to Sex tbrt it Involved tbo 4ctuel taking of a
portion Of tho Rellroad COapmy’8 lmhnhent aad roadbed by the
``88 Dlrtrict, and COnSO~UWlt~l drahge8 duo to tho nSCe88ItJ Of
~IisIng Its roadbed to conform to the lweo built by tho district,
lstiBI8tSd at $275,000,00. The value, of that portion of the roadbed
lctuelly talon br ths hV@e District vas lDDrOX*telj $2,OOO.OO.
m8 Supreme Court held that the letter lmount, that Is, compensa-
tIon for the DrODWty actually teken, VKiS lll the demeges to vhlch
Be rellwe~ coaw%ny VII entitled; that the conroauentlal dsmanes
due to 1%%181n~?the heluht Of the CCW~W’S Omba&ment vere not PC-
cowweb outleT under the Constltutlon. This Kety Flallroed Care
Ia referred to vlth spproval of Chlo? Justice Cureton, Supreme
court of Texas, ln C. R. I. & 0. Ry. Co. v8. Tarrant County Water
Control Iaproveoont District lo. 1, 73 S. w. (26) 55, on SUbSeqUOnt
appeal 76 9. U. (2e) 147, certiorari denlod by WI. 9. Supreme Court,
295 U. S. 762. This letter case ver al80 a condemnation Suit by 8
Water Control Improvement District end quite 8Imilar In principle
to the Ketr Case. The Rock Island &so Yes In the Supreme Court
the first tIMe On CertifISd qU88tiOllS. In this case, C. R. I. & 0.
Ry. CO. VS. Tarrant Uater Improvemmt District, referred to herein
81 tb8 "Rock 18-d CaSO", me Fn vhlch case the queatlon ves raised
8s to meke inquiry under vhat clrcumatances, If eny, v0uie the State
or politiCe1 SUbdiViSiOn be lleblo t0 CoPlDenSetO e p?OpOrty ovner
for consequential 1088 OcceSiOned by the exorcise of the police
govor, Justice Cureton quoter Judgs Cools~ iOr the genem%l rule
8nd principle on the quortion es ?ollovs~
.
. . As to tho grnelrl principle Involved, Judge
Coole/decleres:
'w l proper exorcise of the
poverr of government,
vhich dOeD not directly lncroech upon the property of
en lndlvlduel, or disturb him 1n It8 DO88e88IOn or On-
veys, Shbuld authbrlre the consimctlon of a brlege-
wobble D. C. Oreo?, pego 4
aaross 8 navlgmblo river, it 18 quit0 POSSib~O tht
811 proprletarx lntonst in land upon tho rlvor might
be lnJurlou8l~ affoatod; but suah Injury aould no
nor8 glvo 8 valid olblm l g8lllSt tho btato for dam-
agOB, thrn could any ch8agO in tho genorrl bV8 of
the State, vhlcb, vhllo kooplng ln vlov tho genoml
good, might Injurlou8lP affect partlaular Intorests.
so if b y th elr ea tlo n o f 8 d8mln ordor to lmprovo
n8vlgrtion tho ovner of a flrhory finds it diminished
in value, or l? by deopenlng tho ahannel of a rluor
to tiprove the Mvlg4tion l spring is dertroyod, or
by a change In the grade of 8 city shoot tho value
of 8ejecent lots 18 dImInIShed, In there uld stiller
Ca808 the bV 8ffOrdS 110 ~d~88 for the bjU?y. ’
(ItalIc8 ours.)”
JustiCO CuretOn In Rock IShId C88e continuer:
‘It IS true that under our conrtltutional pro-
vision (section 17 of the Bill of Rights), contrary to
Judge COO1OP’S text, VI do pemlt recovorler by the
cltlcen for d4wger consequent upon changlag street
and hlghvey grader. 16 Texas Jur. p. 900, @ 242, p.
902, # 243, and cares cited In notes; Cooper v. City
of b11Et8, 83 Tax. 239, 18 3. Y. 565, 29 Am. St. Rep.
645; Hart Bras. v. h1188 County (Tex. CW. App.) 279
3. W. 11111 Dallas County v. Barr (Tex. Cl.. App.)
231 3. V. 453. Tho rulo, hoverer, stated by Judge
Cooley, In this IWS~Ct, ha8 not beon 8brogated 88 to
r8Ilroad corporations. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Dal-
laa, g8 Tex. 396, 84 S. U. 648, 70 L. R. A. 850; Oult,
C. & 3. F. Rx. Co. v. #lla~ County, 90 Tex. 355, 38
3. u. 747.
‘In the case of Chlc8go, H. & St. P. Ry. Co. v.
Rinneapollr just cited, the Supreme Court of M.nne-
8Ote StAtOel
“‘The rallvay company con8truotod and placed its
r6I18 on 8 16-foot embmkment along 8 strip of land
600 feet vldo meparatlng tvo navlgsblo tiker, confln-
Ing a natulrl vater course betveen the laker in 8 pipe
through such emlbantient . The company, by such con-
struction, did not acquire such 8 propert right in
malnt8lnlng It8 tnrcks on the embankment I hat it 18
$~o#blr D. C. Oreer, Rage 5
_ for the aost. __of a nocfrrary
l
_.-ntltlod . to oapenratlon
. . .
D?lagO to amry 168 CI\CKS over a PUDllO v8y moreart-
or duly e8tablI8hod 4cro88 its right Of var. The pub-
110 right to lar out ruoh WJ, though l88ortod rub-
roquont in time to the construction of tho rtxd, 18
80 Se? tho prior 8nd ruperlor right that tho company
IS required to make such x’eaSOnabl0 rerdjurtmont of
it8 track8 l 8 18 nOCO888~ t0 PO-it Of the Safe and
convenient u8e of the public var. The requlromont of
ruch re8dJurtment 18 not a taking or Injuring of prop- .
ertr, but rests on the exercise of tho rerorved or
pollco pover o? the state. Ths proposed v&y 18 made
up of 8 wter vay 8nd valks on each ride. The vater
vay tllkb8 the place of the existing rutural vater
course, and bQcwO8, like the laker It connects, pub-
lic navlg8ble vster. A bridge to carry the rallvay
track8 over this vay 18 a necerrary Inaldent of its
use by the public, end 18 required br public conven-
ience and velfare. l l l
“‘Under modern conditions rallvay cwpanlor ere
pioneers In developlpent. Rsllro8dr 4re constructed
Usa``ll~ In advance of the public vayr and lmprove-
mentr Prado nece8rar~ by 8Ub88qUent 8ettlements. The
railroad 1s thus first constructed making provision
for exirtlng land 8nd vator vayr, but vlthout refer-
ence to rubsequont Improvements. 8y such construction
natural conditions are changed. solid embsnkmentr may
be erected across lov lands, or deep cuts made through
FS.) 236, Ann,
ours. )
r- -,
* ? ,: .‘.r
gonolabls D. C. Oreor, page 6
‘ThiS C&SO V&S b?fhWOd br the Supnre Court of
tho Ualtod Stator. Id., 232 u. 9. 430, 34 s. ct. 400,
58 L. Kd. 671.
'In lllanorota tho nservod right of tho state to
rvquln tho oonrtructlon than in lrruo by tho company
bt its ovn oxpearo v&s read into the ohartor and fran-
ah180 of tho acmuanY by Vl?tUO of the Dolice Dover un-
do? the CQoIIIOnlb”. 5% instant -80 18 much t
for hero vo havo a 8tat:te vhlch definer tho d:tziy’
maker tho obligation of restoration a pert of tho ap-
pelhnt~r franchlro, not only as a corporation, but of
Its right to tcro88 I or build taloagt or ‘upon’ tho
rtreamr involved at all. Other rtetes operrrting onlJ
under the common lav as to the Dolloe Dover announce
the seme rule. Illln I 1 f there Stat08 I
tho case of C B. k : ‘R ‘C~v” 111tiOIS 2OO’U ;.
561, 26 9. Ct:‘341, 345, io L: xi. 597, 4 &. Ca;.
1175, the Supreme Court of the United States, In an
OpiniOn bf A88Oci4tO JU8tiCO &Pun, rtsted tho iSSUe
48 fO11OVS :
“‘The contention of tho rallvay coolpan is that,
88 Its present bridge var lav?ully constructed, under
it8 general corporate pover to build, construct, oper-
ate, end maInta5.n a railroad In the county and township
aiorerald, and as the depth 8nd vldtb of the channel
under It vere su??Iclent, at the time, to carry off
the water of tho cnok as lt then iloved, me nov
f1OVS,--the foundation of the bridge cannot be removed
and Its use of the bridge disturbed unless co8IpensatIon
be firat made or secured to it in such amount 48 vi11
be rufflclont to moot the expnae of removing the tlm-
ber8 end stones from the oreek and of constructing a
nev bridge of Such loagth and vlth ruch opening under
It 8.1 the plan OS tho commissioners requires. ThS CW-
pany lnrlst8 that to require It to meet these sxpenses
out of its ovn funds vi11 be, vlthla the meaning of the
ConBtItutIon, a teklng of Its property for public use
vlthout compensation, lne, therefore, vlthout due pro-
cesa of lav, es veil as a denial to it of the equal
protsctlon of the lavr.’
“He then said:
“But. the rallvay company, in effect, if not ln
vords, l.n818t8 thet tho rights vhlch it asserts in this
aoAorablo D. C. Oreer, pago 7
~880 8n ruperlor and paramount to ADS that the pub-
1iC h48 to Me the VAt8r 00``88 ln_. quwtlon
-.-. for the
pU~O8. Of draining the landn in lt8 vlolnlt~, al-
though ruch vatrr aounr Ye8 ln exirtanae for the
bMOiit Of th0 pUbliCI 1.0118 kfOm th0 I&VA, CQ-
pushyoomtructod It8 bridge. thi8 contention cannot,
hovever, k rurt8lned, except upon the theory that
the lcqul8ltloA br the rallvay aoap8nf of a right of
vay through the lend8 in quertlon, and the aonrtmc-
tlon on that right of vay of a bridge lcro88 Rob Roy
creek 8t the polat la qumtlon, carriedvitb it a
ru~render by the rt8te of it8 paver, by 8pproprlate
ag8naler. to provide for 8uah U8e of that natural
vater CourIe a8 might rubrequent1y becaae nece888rJ
or proper ror the public ll-it8-8t8. If the 8tate
could part vlth ruch pov8r, held in trmrt for the
ubllq--vhlch 18 b no mean8 8dmltted,--it ha8 not
%on* 80 in 8ny 8ta t ute, llth8r b y lXpZ'A88 VOrd8 or
by necerrary iopllcatloa. when the rallvay company
laid the toundatlonr of it8 bridge la Rob Roy cre8k,
it did 80 rubjeat to the right8 of the public in the
u8e of that vater coume, and 8180 rubject to the pos-
rlbillty that nev clrcrpa8tAncer and futurcr public nec-
erritler might, in th8 judgment Of the 8t8te, rea8on-
ably require 8 Mterla1 change in the method8 US8d ln
croarlng th8 creek vlth cam. It may bo--and ve take
it to be true--that the op8nlng und8r the bridge a8
orlglaally conrtntcted ~88 rufflclcnt to pa88 all the
v8ter thrn or nov flovlng through the creek. Rut the
duty of the company, irpll8d la lAV, v88 to maintain
8n opening under the bridge that vould be 8dequate and
effectual for ruch An lncma88 in the vo1Uve Of vater
a8 might re8ult fra lavtul, rea8Onab1e r8gu1atlonr
srtAb1lrhed by approprlatr publla authority from time
to time for the drrinage of land8 on either ride of
the crrek. Angell, Hater Courrer (6th Rd.) 8 465b,
p. 640. l ’ l
"@'The great might of authority 18, that vhero
then 18 a natural vatrr vay, or vhere a highway al-
ready 8Xi8t8 and 18 CrO88ed by A mllroad capAny UXI-
d8r it8 general llcenr8 to build a railroad, and vith-
out any rpecltlc gramt by th8 leglrlatlve authority to
obrtruct the hlghvay or wter vay, the railroad aau-
p8ny 18 bound to make and keep it8 cro88iag, at it8
oVn 8Xp8n8e, in 8uch c o nditio n l # 8hA11 a8et all the
rea8onAble rsqulreaent8 of the public a8 thr changed
.-
..!,:. t
gmorable D. C. Oreer, page 8
condition8 ti inCre88ed um may demand.’ l l l
“‘I? the injury aaplalned of 18 on1 incidental
to the legltlmate lxerclre o? governmenta 1 poven for
the public good, then there 18 no t8kln@ of property
for the public uee, and a right to capexwatlon, oa
account of such injury, doe8 not ltt8ah under the Con-
8titUtiOIb. Suoh 18 the pnrent ca8e. l l l
“Without furthsr dl8oiU8lOn, ve hold it to be
theyduty of th8 rAilV4~ C0Omny, At it.8 OVn8xpn88,
to remove frcm the creek the merent bridge,
- culvert.
nd #toner plaa,d thire br it and aleo uni
f%efl*abandon: rv8yrenders it8 rl&t T,O &
creek at or in h t7 Of th8 PX’e8ent CrO88lngl
to erect At it8 ovn lx(p8nle And ABlntAlLI a n8v bridge
for cro8aLng that vill~conrom to the r8gulstlonr ei-
tabllclhed by the drainage commlsaloners, under the au-
thority o? the state1 and much a nqulrement l? en-
forced vi11 not amount to a taking o? private prop-
erty for public we vlthln the meaning of the Conrtl-
tutlon, nor to a den141 of the equal protection o? the
lavr , ’ (Itallc8 ourr.)"
.(12 It 18 uite e18mentary that, although the
Conrtltut 1 on provl 8 86 for compenratlon ior property
damaged or d8mtroyed, lt doer not require ccapenaa-
tiOn to be paid in All CA888 iOr COa8OqUentlA1 1088
ocCa8iOned bv th8 8X8rCl8e of the oo1lcS Dover. 16
6x. Jur. pp. 870, 871, #a 221, 2251 Ho~8i0n & T. C.
R. co. v. Dallar, g8 Tax. 396, 04 9. W. 648, 70 L. R.
A. 8501 OulS, c. b s. P. Ry. co. v. Hilam County, go
Tex. 355, 38 S. Y. 7471 Cooley’m Conrt. Llm. (8th Ed.),
vol. 2, p. 1149.’
"( 16) The AuthOrltie8 8180 8ppear;;i``nnt~orm
In holding that conrequ8ntlal damager
navigation laprovementa murt be born8 by the party
affected and not by the goveroaent. )l1118V. u. 5.
(D. C .) 56 F. 738, 12 L. R. A. 673: Union Bridge Co.
v. u. s., 204 il.9. 364, 399, 27 9. Ct. 367, 51 L. Ed.
523; Honang8h8ti Brld e Co, v. U. S., 216 U. S. 177,
193, 30 5. Ct. 356, 5f L. Bd. 435; ~7 R. C. L. p. 1331,
8 2 gj 45 Corpus JurlB, p. 424, @# 23, 24, 25; p. 492,
0 1 f 3; 20 Corpu8 Jurl8, p. 681, # 145-T
gonorable D. C. Omer, page 9
On the vhole, therefore, vo conclude that,
‘(17)
vhlle 18 l’O8pOll8ibl~ in dU8ge8
the AppOlle1, for 80
much of the app8llant~8 line a8 it actually take8, it
18 not liable for the sort o? r8lrlzig lpp8llAnt~r rall-
vaJ line 8ndbridge8 lbov8 the rubmlrrrgenceor flood
liner of Bridgeport Lake, nor for the co8t of nlocat-
lng and nbulldlng the mllroad around the lak8 a8 ll-
lu8tmted on the up (Exhibit B).*
By virtue of the holding8 and naronlng in the abov8 Rock
18land and Katy Care8 And thr authorltle8
therein cited, ve 8118ver
your que8tlon lo. 1 In th8 negative, that lr to rar, that th8n 18
Ao legal llablllty o? th8 State of Texar for damage8 to the Rallvay
C081paay upon the f8Ct8 8Ubaitt8d.
InA8mUch 48 Ve have 8II8V8md your mmber 1 question in
the negative, and 8inC8 ve are 888miIIg that you arked qUe8tiOn HO.
2 in snticipation Of a po88ibl8 AffiImatiVe anaver t0 qUe8tiOn RO. 1.
v8 deem it unnecb88ar~ to categorloally an8v8r thir latter question.
TrU8ting thlr 8Ati8fACtOrily UI8Ver8 your inquiry, ve
8m
Your8 very truly
JWcC/JCP.~ .
-’ j::5