This case was tried in the District Court and argued here with City of Fort Worth et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (C.C.A.) 80 F.(2d) 972. It does not differ materially. An ordinance of the city passed June 5, 1888, appears in the record which purports to grant to the
A point is made on the provision of Rev.St.1925, art. 5517: “The right of the State shall not be barred by any of the provisions of this title, nor shall any person ever acquire, by occupancy or adverse possession, any right or title to any part or portion of any road, street, sidewalk or grounds which belong to any town, city or county,” etc. This article is a part of title 91 relating to limitations. It prevents the acquisition of a title by prescription or limitation against the state and its subdivisions, or a right to maintain any encroachment upon the streets because of its long continuance. The right or title of the telegraph company here rests on no such basis, but is acquired by virtue' of the statute which gives it. Occupancy merely operates to accept the statutory offer and to define and locate its application.
For the reasons stated in the case of City of Fort Worth v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, we are of opinion that the court rightly retained the bill, but wrongly decreed an injunction. The cause is reversed and remanded with direction to enter a decree denying relief.