Barfield v. Macon County

• Decision Date: 02 December 1899
• Citation: 109 Ga. 386,34 S.E. 596
• Parties: BARFIELD. v. MACON COUNTY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

34 S.E. 596

109 Ga. 386

BARFIELD.

v.MACON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 2, 1899.

LIABILITY OF COUNTY—OVERFLOWING LANDS.

Following the decision of this court in Smith v. Floyd Co., 11 S. E. 850, 85 Ga. 420, a right of action exists against a county for damaging private property for public uses in causing public roads to be worked or drained in such manner as to injure or damage the adjacent premises of a landed proprietor.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Macon county; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Barfield against Macon county. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

W. G. Harrison, J. W. Haygood, and J. M. Dupree, for plaintiff in error.

Greer & Felton, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. Mrs. Barfield brought suit against Macon county, alleging in her petition in substance as follows: She is the owner of certain described lots of land which lay adjacent to a public road of the county. In 1897 the hands summoned to work the public road under the control of the road overseer, who was representing the county of Macon and under its direction, so changed the public road as that the water which had been accustomed to pond in the road overflowed her laud, and damaged her crops in a sum named. She complained to the commissioners of Macon county, but they paid no attention to her complaint In 1898 the hands were again summoned to work the road, and under the supervision of the road overseer, who was representing the county of Macon, and acting under its direction, made further changes in the road, whereby her property was damaged; and by reason of such changes the water, which would not otherwise have flowed upon her land, has overflowed the same, and injured the land, and thereby greatly reduced the market value of her property. It is alleged that she presented her claim for damages to the county commissioners within 12 months from the time such damage accrued, and they refused to pay the same. To this petition the defendant demurred upon the ground that it set forth no cause of action, and that there was no allegation that the defendant either did, or authorized to be done by others, the acts complained of, and that, if any one was liable for the damage sustained by the plaintiff, it was either the overseer or the road hands or both, and not the defendant. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted. In the case of Smith v. Floyd Co., 85 Ga. 420, 11 S. E. 850, it was held that: "Construing the constitution of 1877 and the Code together, a right of action exists against a county for damaging private property for public uses in constructing the approaches to a county bridge, thereby elevating the roadway above an adjacent lot so as to hinder access to the lot from the road." In the opinion Chief Justice Bleckley says: "Had the plaintiff's property been damaged in...