stating that "proof of acceptance was necessary" in the absence of formal city acceptance and "whatever evidence there may be of an implied acceptance, it is of such a nature as to raise an issue of fact in regard thereto"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "proof of acceptance was necessary" in the absence of formal city acceptance and "whatever evidence there may be of an implied acceptance, it is of such a nature as to raise an issue of fact in regard thereto"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Motion for Rehearing.
We see no good reason to depart from the views expressed in our original opinion in this case, and appellant’s motion for a rehearing will therefore be overruled. In compliance with the request of appellant for additional conclusions of fact, we find:
1. That the city of Dallas on March 4, 1913, enacted an ordinance entitled an ordinance amending section 161 of the Building Code of the city of Dallas, section 2 of which reads as follows: “That whenever any lots are laid off by any plat, showing a frontage for said lots on any street or avenue in the residence section of the city, all buildings erected on same, shall have their frontage on said street or avenue so as to conform to the frontage of the lots shown on any such plat.”
2. That the lots laid off by Clayton D. Browne, known as Haskell Place addition, are in the residence portion of the city of Dallas.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.