Church v. State Highway Dep't
| Decision Date | 01 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 137.,137. |
| Citation | 236 N.W. 900,254 Mich. 666 |
| Parties | CHURCH et al. v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Ingham County; Charles B. Collingwood, Judge.
Action by Frank E. Church and another against the State Highway Department Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, J. Paul W. Voorbies, Atty. Gen., and K. F. Clardy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Shields, Silsbee, Ballard & Jennings, of Lansing (Harris E. Thomas, of Lansing, of counsel), for appellees.
Act No. 352, Public Acts 1925, amended by Act No. 92, Public Acts 1927, empowered the state highway commissioner to purchase and condemn private property for highway purposes in the name of the state, and enjoined purchase by agreement when possible.
The widening of the highway known as M. O. 33-14, between the cities of Lansing and East Lansing, required taking land owned by Frank E. and Bertha L. Church, styled plaintiffs herein, upon which stood the front seventeen feet of their large brick dwelling house. Compensation for the house was a subject of discussion; the negotiation finally culminating in a written agreement, executed by the owners and the state highway commissioner, and approved by the state administrative board, whereby the owners were to grant, convey, and duly acknowledge an easement in, over, and upon their land needed for widening of the highway and the state highway commissioner, in consideration of the easement, agreed to move the house to a new location upon plaintiffs' remaining land and to fully restore it and its accessories, agreeable to Warren S. Holmes, an architect who was selected ‘to be their arbitrator,’ to determine whether the house, upon removal, and its accessories, were fully restored, and, if not, to fix the compensation to be made to plaintiffs. The agreement also provided that the architect have all the powers of an arbitrator under the arbitration statutes of this state (Comp. Laws 1929, § 15394 et seq.), and his award might be confirmed ‘as provided by said statutes.’ If seventeen feet of the front of the house had been removed, the remainder would have been worthless, except for junk, and, had the rule for determining compensation, in case of condemnation, been employed, the commissioner would have had to pay the value of the whole house. City of Detroit v. Loula, 227 Mich. 189, 198 N. W. 837. It was evidently believed by the commissioner that the house could be moved at less expense than its value, and this would have proved true had not damage been occasioned to the building in the course of moving.
The job of moving was let to a private company, and, when the architect was called to view the building after the moving, he found it seriously damaged and its accessories not restored and, upon detailed specifications, awarded the owners $24,250, and filed the award in court. Thereupon the owners, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, petitioned the court to confirm the award, and this was done over objections of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dougherty v. Vidal
...suit was against the individual commissioners as for a tort. If so, he has abandoned that position. Church v. State Highway Department, 254 Mich. 666, 236 N.W. 900, is a peculiar case. The highway department was authorized by law to condemn private property, but enjoined to purchase by agre......
-
Dougherty v. Vidal
...the present suit was against the individual commissioners as for a tort. If so, he has abandoned that position. Church v. State Highway Department, 254 Mich. 666, 236 N. W. 900, is a peculiar case. The highway department was authorized by law to condemn private property, but enjoined to pur......
-
Hunt v. Ziegler
...lawfully empowered to enter into binding agreements for acquisition of lands and rights in land is attested by Church v. State Highway Department, 254 Mich. 666, 236 N.W. 900.6 In this connection we note that defendant's quoted charge of fraud against the Hunts was finally renounced by Bril......
-
Miller v. People, 34.
...a proceeding authorized by statute in which the immunity of the State has been waived as found by this Court in Church v. State Highway Department, 254 Mich. 666, 236 N.W. 900. Plaintiffs in their brief set forth the following as facts: ‘The plaintiffs are the owners of the land involved wh......