213
dI
b
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
r6novo6 tha prop6rtpowaer8fi teaoe froa th6 road-
wa 18 It the aouaty’r obl&etlon to rebuild
8aI'd ha00 ?or laid property owa6r6, Or IAO;~~
f$$good Oondition 68 it W66 ktOr8 b6 L
2L4
pnorabl6 Don 3. IXrkrr, Face 6
oatiOIlFrOOeOdi~, FU.WhtNJ~,OOntX'-t Ol-otherwire.
Seotloa 17 of Artlole I of the st6t6 COli6titUtiOll
prides thata
"h'opemoa'8 property shell be taken, dam-
aged or dertroyed for or applied to pubUc uee
without odb~u6t.soompsnsatloabeing Imae, unl8ss
by the coneeat of awh~pers~nj and, rhea taken,
8xOeFt for the U8e of the 6tate, 8UOh 00XZIp8ll66-
tion rhall be first mnde, or scoured by a de-
posit of money; and no lrrevooabla or unooatrol-
lab18 @3r& Of 8p601Q1 5W1irir6&38 Or iEEUUllitiO8,
8hall be nadei but all prlrlle@e and franohi8es
~ra.ntOdby the L.e~lslature, or oreated under its
authority shall be 8ubjeot to the control thsr60f.m
we quote iron Texas JurlS. Vol. 16, p. 994, 08 Sol-
1-1
*In other jur~sdiOtion8 there 16 a OonfliOt
of authority upon the question OS the right to
recover the costs of any renmol of bull&n&@
ilndrences as a separ& item of damme, aok
mthoritlee holdlry:that thla Co8t l6 merely (L
iaot to be oonsideied ln drtetiniry:the de&w
clatlon oi the land by the t&la&. In T6xa8,
while all authorltlea qree that the Jury nay
tske aooount of Ssct that the rsnoval OS 6tru6-
tures 18 neoersitated by the Condenn6t~onof
part oi the traot, some deci6loM appear to ln-
diaate that ruch dam&e Mayanot be awarded aira
8epsrate item, but other6 hold t&t a rerdlct is
not objeotlonable for the sole rea6on thst the
OO6t Of the rerntal Of 6trUOtW68 tlpp6m8 66 6
dlstlnot item and rerdiot.
Vhe 8ubstantial point involved is that,
under the eneral priaolpie o? the law of &am-
ages, the % 6tFUOtiOIl8 lU3Oey
not ba 80 dram a8
to permit a double reoorery. The dsfendant is
protooted where, on an award inoludlry an lt6m
for remral or 8truatwe6, it 16 made clear that
the generul item for depreciation exolude8 the
.eeparsteitem6 mentioned. A fortiori, where a
8il@O 8m 16 awarded ror all depreolatlon in-
eluding the cost of removal of stNQttme6, nn
215
Bonorablo Doa D.
In8truotloa conrider
.* __the soat
of reamring
of depraolatloa 18 not objeotlonable either a6
permitt1 a doublr Mootery or a8 being a oharge
oa the ve %t of the ovldeaoe.
"On the other band, Inrtruotlorrsare objso-
tlonable a8 allowIng a double recovery where the
jury are oharged to oonslder ovary Saot and air-
omuIt.anceof evidence In a88esslng the deprsola-
tlon, and then, by a further lmtruotloa, are
directed to oonslder the oo8t of t0mofa.land re-
ereotloa of fence8.w See the aa8e6 of W$'6STS.
LfoLaIll,100 S. Ib'.
802; city Of San isntonlot8.
Fite, 224 9. E. 911; Ft. Forth and D. 5. P. 1.
Company ~6. Judd, 4 S. W. (26) 1032; Central
Fewer and Light Co. ~8. Sillacy County, 14 S. 8.
(2d) 102.
No 6peoIflo 6a8wer to the aborementloned question
a688 which might be Involved In
could apply to all of the tt
aoqulring right-of-Way for road purposa8 and the rebulldl~
or replaoing of fen008 for the propemty ovrner8, but each 0~186
would be 60Yemed by it8 own facts.
Where right-of-way 18 acquired by purohase, contract
or otheruI8e except by oondenmatIon prooesdIng8 an¶ the con-
8truotlon or rebuildlag o? the fence 16 the vhoie or a part of
the oQn6IderatIonfor tuoh new right-of-way or addltlonal
right-of-ray reaured by tlm oounty, then the oounty would be
obligated to carry out It6 agrement With the landowner regard-
ing the rebuIldinp,or oonstruatlon of the fenoe acoording to
the oontract or egreepent had between the parties.
In the oa8o of ?!orrI6VII.Coleman County, 28 S. F.
380, the court 8aidt
We thiok the item In the acoount for cost of
fire miles of fenoe, a8 a 4istinCt itemof danIa688,
via8properly stricken out. The question la, what
additional burden was put upon the land aifeoting
its value by opening the road7
If 6UCh a6w or additional ri ht4f-way I8 acquired
udgmmt of the court
by oondsnnatlon proceedings, then the 'j
would oontrol.
- .
216
gonorable Don D. Parker, Page 4
Trustin% that the foregoing answers your Inquiry,
m remsin
YOUr8 very truly
ATTO?JE!f GENWJ. OF T2iX.S
By t&fQQflL
tide11 7illlIam
A8SistElLt
COMMITTEE
A r.4
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion