Briggs v. Allen
| Decision Date | 04 April 1902 |
| Citation | 52 A. 679,24 R.I. 80 |
| Parties | BRIGGS v. ALLEN, Town Treasurer. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Action by Sarah E. Briggs against John B. Allen, town treasurer. Demurrer to complaint sustained.
Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and ROGERS, JJ.
P. Henry Quinn, for plaintiff.
Job S. Carpenter, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass quare clausum, and is brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff's testator in his lifetime by reason of certain wrongful acts committed by the surveyor of highways of district No. 1 in the defendant town of Warwick.
The declaration sets out that on the —— day of August, 1900, and upon other days following the same, the defendant, by its agents and servants, to wit, its highway surveyor of highway district No. 1 and other agents and employes working under the direction of said surveyor, with force and arms broke and entered the plaintiff's testator's close, therein described, and forcibly tore down and removed a bank wall standing thereon; cut down and destroyed two large and valuable shade trees growing upon said land; dug up and carried away a large amount of loam and soil from said close; and seized and appropriated about 900 square feet of the northern portion of said close, adjoining Main street, for public purposes, to wit, for the purpose of widening said Main street. And the plaintiff avers that the defendant corporation has hitherto held possession of said portion of said close, using the same for highway purposes, to the exclusion of the plaintiff's testator during his lifetime. To this declaration the defendant has demurred, on the grounds: (1) That it does not show that the defendant town of Warwick in its corporate capacity has committed any trespass, or authorized any trespass to be committed; (2) that it does not show that said town in its corporate capacity has taken any steps in the matter of widening said Main street, or has appropriated any land belonging to the plaintiff's testator; and (3) that a highway surveyor is not an agent and servant of a town, who can make the town liable for his unauthorized acts. The case, as stated in the plaintiff's declaration, simply comes to this: That the highway surveyor of district No. 1 in said town, together with the workmen under his control, wrongfully entered upon the land in question, and wrongfully committed the acts complained of. It is not alleged that the defendant town, or the town council thereof, in any way authorized the commission of said acts, or that either of said bodies ratified them after they were committed. The declaration, therefore, states a bald case of trespass on the part of the persons who committed the acts, and nothing more. That the highway surveyor had no authority to take the land in question for the widening of said highway, or to do the other acts complained of, goes without saying. Indeed, the defendant town itself had no such authority, but only the town council thereof, and that only in the manner provided by statute....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willoughby v. Allen
...by the statute was made or attempted to be made, and hence no right of appeal on the part of the plaintiff existed. Briggs v. Allen, 24 R. I. 80, 52 Atl. 679, cited by defendant's counsel, simply holds that a town is not liable for the acts of a surveyor of highways not authorized by the to......
- In re City of Pawtucket