of the easement cannot impose a different or extra burden upon the landowner.”) (citation omitted). Viewed in context, it is plain that the Farrell easement was taken specifically to accommodate “an electric transmission line” for a discrete power project, and it is equally plain that the compensation award reflected the limited nature of that objective. As one might expect of a single row of poles and wires running down the center of 75-foot wide easement, the award was solely for the value of “the property taken” rather than for “any impairment td the value of the remaining property or consequential damages.” Obviously, no consideration was given to the possibility of a second row of poles and attached wires to accommodate another ambitious power project som 437 (Tex Civ. App. 1950) (<HOLDING>); see generally 3 J. Sackman, Nichols on
holding that placement of additional lines and crossarms on existing power poles by second power company imposed additional burden on easement entitling landowner to compensation holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding that although landowner was previously compensated for street construction the lowering of the street grade imposed an additional burden upon landowners property from that contemplated when the street was dedicated for which she is entitled to compensation holding that confirmation vests in the debtor property of the estate not dedicated to the plan holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence