# City of Dallas v. Couchman

> Court of Appeals of Texas · February 10, 1923 · 249 S.W. 234

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9827652

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF DALLAS Et Al. v. COUCHMAN Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 10, 1923
- **Citations:** 249 S.W. 234
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9827652

## Opinion text

On Motion for Rehearing.
A re-examination of appellees’ petition in the light of the motion for rehearing has led us to the conclusion that the petition should be held sufficient to allege that appellant had not obtained the writted consent of the owners of a majority of the front footage of property, and could not obtain such consent as to the entire route of the proposed line of railway through the streets of the city of Dallas. We conclude that sections 5, 6, and 8 contain allegations sufficient to meet the requirements in this respect, although
*241 there are no allegations in the petition which can be said specifically, distinctly, and definitely to set forth that the city of Dallas has not obtained, and cannot obtain, the written consent of such majority of owners of the front footage of property along the whole way the proposed trackage is to traverse.
Modifying the opinion in this respect so as to hold that the petition is sufficient as an allegation of appellees’ failure to obtain such consents does not affect the disposition made of the case by this court.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9827652. Public record. Not legal advice.