Wiley District v. Semmens

1 Citing case

  1. Pickens v. Hidalgo Cty Water

    284 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Civ. App. 1955)   Cited 12 times
    In Pickens v. Hidalgo County Water Control and Improvement District No. 16, 284 S.W.2d 784 (Tex.Civ.App. 1955, no wr. hist.)

    When the condemnation proceedings were filed in the County Court at Law, that court had exclusive jurisdiction to allow appellants compensation for all property taken, injured or damaged by the taking of the surface easement sought by appellee, including full compensation for appellants' water and water rights. Darlington v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 278 Pa. 307, 123 A. 284; Wiley Drainage District v. Semmens, 80 Colo. 3625, 250 P. 527; United States v. Welch, 217 U.S. 333, 30 S.Ct. 527, 54 L.Ed. 787. Neither did the court err in refusing to grant appellants a summary judgment declaring appellee's Water Permit No. 1518 to be null and void. Appellee's right to condemn the surface easement which it sought was dependent upon the validity of its permit No. 1518. The County Court at Law had exclusive jurisdiction to determine this matter.