Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Palmer
Decision Date | 09 November 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 5-201,5-201 |
Citation | 222 Ark. 603,261 S.W.2d 772 |
Parties | ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. PALMER et al. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. R. Thrasher and William L. Terry, Little Rock, John L. Hughes, Benton, for appellant.
Ben M. McCray, Benton, for appellees.
September 10, 1951, the Arkansas State Highway Commission, proceeding under § 76-510, Ark.Stats. 1947, by its petition, called upon the Saline County Court for an order condemning a right of way over certain land of appellees in that county. Thereafter, on August 7, 1952, the Saline County Court made and entered its condemnation order as requested by the Highway Commission. Appellees' land was physically entered and the roadbed constructed by the Highway Department pursuant to this order.
At this point, appellees filed claim for damages in the County Court against both the Highway Commission and Saline County. Their claim was allowed by the County Court against both the Highway Commission and the county, in the amount of $490.50.
Appellees duly appealed to the Saline Circuit Court and appellant, Highway Commission, demurred to the appeal on the ground that it was, in effect, a suit against the State of Arkansas over which the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction. This demurrer was overruled December 8, 1952 and exception properly saved by appellant, Highway Commission.
A jury trial followed on December 9, 1952, which resulted in a verdict for appellees in the amount of $6,000 against both the Arkansas State Highway Commission and Saline County. Thereafter, on December 22, 1952, the Highway Commission filed motion for a new trial and on March 10, 1953, within the same term of court, the trial court heard and overruled this motion. Saline County did not file a motion for a new trial. The State Highway Commission alone has appealed.
For reversal, the Highway Commission argues that the trial court erred in overruling its demurrer. We agree. This demurrer alleged:
The judgment here was against the Highway Commission, a State agency, and was, in effect, a judgment against the State and could not be maintained in the circumstances. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Nelson Brothers, 191 Ark. 629, 87 S.W.2d 394; Federal Land Bank of St. Louis v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 194 Ark. 616, 108 S.W.2d 1077.
Section 76-510, above, provides: , and § 76-511 provides:
These sections set forth two alternative methods by which rights of way might be acquired. The first method, § 76-510, gives the Highway Commission the authority to call upon the county court to change or widen any state highway where deemed necessary by the State Highway Engineer. The statute further provides that if the county court should refuse, the Commission could then refuse to construct, improve or maintain the road 'until a suitable right-of-way is provided.'
The second method, § 76-511, provides that where the Highway Commission petitions the county court asking for right of way for a state highway, and the county court fails to grant the petition within sixty days, then the Highway Commission itself can acquire the right of way, by purchase, eminent domain or otherwise, and in such event the Highway Commission can deduct one-half the cost from the county's next turnback fund.
Here, the Highway Commission proceeded under the first method, § 76-510. The County Court, acting within its power, did not refuse the request of the Highway Commission, but granted its petition, furnished the right of way, and properly entered its order condemning appellees' land, and, by so doing, the county became liable for all damages for such taking, § 76-510.
In the case of Ross v. State Highway Commission, 184 Ark. 610, 43 S.W.2d 75, 76, we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of America
...Com'n., 194 Ark. 616, 108 S.W.2d 1077; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Bush, 195 Ark. 920, 114 S.W.2d 1061; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Palmer, 222 Ark. 603, 261 S.W.2d 772; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. McNeil, 222 Ark. 643, 262 S.W.2d 129; Roesler v. Denton, 239 Ark. 462, 390 S.W......
-
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. Parker
...and must be bound by the actions of its attorneys. But the point is that the State is not lawfully subject to liability in this case. The Palmer case and its predecessors have established the rule that in a proceeding such as this one, brought under Ark.Stats.1947, § 76--510, the State is i......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Coffelt
...the following as one ground: The Court erred in overruling principles of law announced in the cases of Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Palmer, 222 Ark. 603, 261 S.W.2d 772, and The State Life Insurance Company of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 202 Ark. 12, ......
-
Bollinger v. Arkansas State Highway Commission
...all holding that when the county condemns land, the county is liable for the damages. The land mark case is Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Palmer, 222 Ark. 603, 261 S.W.2d 772. * * * It seems to me in a case like this one where the county condemns the land and the property owner is su......