Fulton County v. Amorous
| Decision Date | 16 May 1892 |
| Citation | 16 S.E. 201,89 Ga. 614 |
| Parties | FULTON COUNTY. v. AMOROUS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jury — Condemning Land — Possession under Bond for Title—Husband and Wife — Hignwats.
1. Where a statute requires jurors to be drawn separately for each week of the term, it contemplates that the jurors drawn for a given week shall be impaneled for the service of that week, and generally the practice of the court should conform to the scheme of the statute. But, as all the jurors are drawn for the same term, the court may, in its discretion, with the consent of the jurors concerned, excuse them from serving in the week for which they were drawn, and assign them for service in a succeeding week; and that this was done will not, in the absence of any suggestion of injury to the litigant, constitute cause for challenge to the array, on the ground that a portion of the jurors in the panel were not drawn to serve for the week in which the panel was made up.
2. That some of the jurors drawn, but not impaneled, were excused by the court for causes not expressly provided for by the statute, is not ground for challenge to the array.
3. One in possession of land under a bond for titles from the true owner, with purchase money partly paid, is the owner of the freehold relatively to all persons except the maker of the bond and those claiming under him. In case the premises are taken or damaged for public purposes, the possessor under the bond is entitled to full compensation; certainly so by showing affirmatively the acquiescence of his vendor in his claim, and this may be done by producing in evidence a conveyance from the latter, made pending the action and passing the absolute title in fee simple.
4. Where husband and wife live together on premises which belong to her, she is not bound or affected by the act of her husband in signing a petition for widening the public road in front of the premises, without evidence that she authorized or assented to his act or afterwards ratified it as her own.
5. An order of the commissioners of roads and revenues, authorizing the widening of a public road, and reciting "that notice of such widening had been published as required by law, " furnishes no evidence, by presumption or otherwise, that persons, their overseers, or agents, residing on the land through which such road goes, were notified in writing as the statute (Code, § 606) requires.
6. If in fact a public road is widened under an order of the commissioners of roads and revenues authorizing it, a provision in the order that it should be done without expense to the county will not bar a claim for damages, or an action therefor, in behalf of a landowner whose property was in fact taken and appropriated without his consent in carrying the order into effect.
7. Where the order for widening a public road authorizes that it be widened from 20 feet to 30 feet, if the county authorities actually add 20 feet to its width, and the road is used by the public accordingly, and no steps are taken to reduce the width or to compensate for the damage done in the execution of the order, the landowner is entitled to compensation for all the land actually taken and used, notwithstanding the quantity may be in excess of that contemplated by the order, it not appearing that the road as opened and used is wider than the public necessities require, or than the county authorities, under a proper order, might have made it.
8. The verdict was warranted by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Atlanta; T. P. Westmoreland, Judge.
Action by Martin T. Amorous against Fulton county. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. The following is the official report: Amorous sued Fulton county for damages, alleging that about August 20, 1890, he was the owner of a tract of land, describing it, having a valuable frontage on a public road, with a valuable dwelling house on the land, which had been erected with reference to this front, and the front yard contained a magnificent grow th of fine shade trees, the situation of the house and trees adding much to the value of the property; that at the time mentioned defendant, through the district road commissioners, a force of county hands and others employed and acting under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyers v. State, (No. 7007.)
...excused by the court for causes not expressly provided for by the statute, is not ground for challenge to the array." Fulton County v. Amorous, 89 Ga. 615(2), 16 S. E. 201. The presumption is that a trial judge has a legal reason for excusing jurors where he has done so. Benford v. State, 1......
-
Terrell County v. York
... ... provisions, are void; but there is no such provision in ... reference to the alteration of public roads. In Fulton ... County v. Amorous, 89 Ga. 614, 16 S.E. 201, it was held ... that the county was liable to a property owner for the land ... taken and used for ... ...
-
Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Decatur County v. Curry
...would not bind the plaintiffs without evidence that they authorized, or assented to, his act in so doing afterwards. Fulton County v. Amorous, 89 Ga. 615, 16 S.E. 201. As commissioners were proceeding to condemn a certain portion of plaintiffs' land under Civil Code 1910, § 5206 et seq., an......
-
Guin v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co.
... ... where similar propositions were involved. In Fulton ... County v. Amorous, 89 Ga. 614, 16 S.E. 201, the holder ... of a bond for title was held to ... ...