Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1961 )


Menu:
  •          THEATTORNEY      GENERAL
    OF TEXAS
    March 14, 1961
    Honorable Q. F. Steger      Opinion No. WW-1017
    County Attorney
    Colorado County             Re:   Whether property already
    Columbus, Texas                   appropriated    to one public
    use can be taken under
    eminent domain laws for
    another public us@ in the
    absence of a showing that
    the purpose of the taking
    can be aocompllehed in no
    Dear Mr. Steger:                  other practical    manner.
    You state in your opinion request that Colorado County
    1s contemplating   the condemnation of a lengthwise portion
    of railroad   spur right of way located In an unpopulated area
    of the county for the purpose of building a aounty road.      As
    we understand the facts the county seeks to aoqulre that por-
    tion of railroad   right of way from the intersectlon  of the
    tracks and Farm-to-Market Road No. 950 in a aoutherly direc-
    tion for almost a distance of one-half mile.
    Prior to the consideration  of condemnation the county
    offered to purchase the needed right of way from the railway
    company, which 1s not presently    in use by the railroad.   Sub -
    sequently,   the company declined to sell stating that such
    segment of the railroad    would be needed In the future.
    In,,your opinion request your conclusl$n Is that the right
    of way         has not been abandoned . . . and you have ask-
    ed the folio&g     question:
    “Can property already appropriated   to one
    public use be taken under applicable    laws of
    eminent domain for another public use In the
    absence of a showing that the purpose of the
    taking can be accomplished in no other practi-
    cal manner?”
    It is stated In Snellen v. Brazoria     County,   
    224 S.W.2d 305
    (Civ. App., 1949, error ref. n.r.e.)     that:
    Honorable   G. F. Steger,   Page 2 (ww-1017)
    as a general rule, property appro-
    priated to-the public purpose cannot be taken
    for another public use without express or lm-
    plied legislative      authority when such taking
    results   in practical    destruction of the prior
    use unless the subsequent taking is for a
    public purpose of greater or paramount lmport-
    ante which cannot be accomplished in any other
    practical   way."    (Emphasis added)
    This rule was originally stated in Sabine & E. T. Ry.
    Co. V. Gulf & I. Ry. Co. of Texas, 
    92 Tex. 162
    , 
    46 S.W. 784
        8).
    There 1s no applicable  statute conferring   the specific
    authority needed by the county to condemn the desired portion
    of railroad  right of way. In the absence of such authority,
    to sustain a subsequent taking under a general power, there
    must be a showing of paramount importance or purpose and that
    the power can be exercised   In no other practical   way, We
    accordingly  answer your question in the negative.
    SUMMARY
    In absence of legislative    authority,  property
    appropriated  to a public purpose cannot be
    taken for another public use when such taking
    will destroy or materially     impair the prior use
    unless the subsequent taking is for a paramount
    public importance which cannot be accomplished
    In any other practical    way.
    Yours very truly,
    WILL WILSON
    Attorney General of Texas
    WHPjr:mm
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    W. V. Geppert, Chairman
    Edward A. Cazares
    John C. Phillips
    John Leonarz
    Dudley McCalla
    REVEIWED FOR THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL
    BY: Morgan Nesbitt
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-1017

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1961

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017