Belk v. Hamilton
Decision Date | 07 November 1895 |
Citation | 32 S.W. 656,130 Mo. 292 |
Parties | BELK v. HAMILTON. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Const. 1875, art. 2, § 20, prohibits the taking of private land for private use without consent of the owner, except for "private ways of necessity." Rev. St. 1889, § 8559, authorizes the taking of private land for a private road on a petition asking for a "private way" from land to a public road, and showing that "no public road passes through or touches" the land. Held, an allegation that no "public road passes through or touches" the land will render a petition under the latter good against collateral attack for failure to allege that the way asked was one of necessity.
2. A petition for a private way from private land to a public road, describing the land as a government subdivision, located in a certain county, and the petitioner as a householder of a township in the county, and asking the road for her benefit "in said township," conclusively locates the land in such township, so as to render a judgment by commissioners authorized to act in said township good against collateral attack.
3. An order of a county board in a proceeding to establish a private way, reciting the deposit by the petitioner of the damages awarded, and directing the defendants to vacate the road and the road overseers to open it, as in the order described, over the defendants' land, sufficiently complies with Rev. St. 1889, § 8562, requiring the county board, at a proper stage of such a proceeding, to order the way established, and render judgment against the petitioner for damages allowed each defendant.
Appeal from circuit court, Dekalb county; William S. Herndon, Judge.
Petition by Martha Ann Belk against Henry Hamilton to enjoin defendant from obstructing a private way. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
The material parts of the record of proceedings of the township board, referred to in the opinion, are as follows: The petition of plaintiff, Martha Belk, to the board, represented that she owned a certain (described) tract of land, "that no public road passes through or touches said land," and prayed the establishment of a private road 20 feet wide between certain points (a course duly and particularly defined), so as to join a public road mentioned. It was also stated that the proposed private road would pass over the land of John Dice and Henry Hamilton, the latter the defendant in this case. The petition was dated June 18, 1892. To it was annexed a formal notice by plaintiff to both Dice and Hamilton to the effect that the said petition for a private road would be presented to the township board of Adams township July 5, 1892. A copy of the petition and notice was served on each of the defendants June 23, 1892, as appears by affidavit of the party who made such service, according to the finding of the board to that effect in its record. July 5, 1892, the board entertained the petition, but continued the matter until accrued costs should be paid, and a deposit be made by plaintiff to meet any later costs. September 5, 1892, the board again took up the matter. Plaintiff paid the costs, and the board proceeded as follows (according to the recital of its record): The next record entry is this: Later appears this: Another entry is as follows: And on the same date: "The board orders the clerk to notify Henry Hamilton that damages have been paid to the township treasurer for his use; also to notify him that he is to open up and vacate said road on or before the 15th day of April, 1893." At the same meeting, same date, is the following entry: "The board, now makes and orders Henry Hamilton to remove his wire fence, vacate and open up the private road petitioned for by Martha Belk, and that said order be complied with on or before April 15th, 1893." Yet later is this record: William Johnson, the overseer, opened the road pursuant to the order of the township board. The other necessary facts appear in the divisional opinion.
Harwood & Hubbell, for appellant. Robt. A. Hewitt, Jr., for respondent.
This suit is for an injunction to restrain defendant from interfering with plaintiff's use of a road which affords access to plaintiff's property. The defendant claims exclusive title to the land on which the road is located, and denies the legality of the proceedings on which plaintiff relies. The only question submitted upon this appeal is as to the validity of the proceeding to open the road. The land in dispute lies in Dekalb county. The proceedings were had before the township board, under the township organization law (section 8552 and the following sections, Rev. St. 1889). The material parts of the record of the board are given in the statement introducing this opinion. After the road was opened (under the order of the board) the defendant obstructed the road, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial