City of Henderson v. McClain

Decision Date09 December 1897
Citation43 S.W. 700,102 Ky. 402
PartiesCITY OF HENDERSON v. McCLAIN.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from circuit court, Henderson county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Helen McClain against the city of Henderson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Clay &amp Clay, for appellant.

Yeaman & Lockett, for appellee.

DU RELLE, J.

The appellee brought suit against the city of Henderson, alleging that she was the owner of a lot of land fronting on Center street, and had easy and free access to and use of that street in going to and from her residence; that the appellant, in pursuance of an ordinance of its common council, caused the street to be excavated in front of and adjoining her property, up to the line thereof, to such an extent and depth as to ruin her fence and inclosure, wholly destroying her access to and use of the street, leaving the surface of her lot from 8 to 10 feet above the street and sidewalk, and the entrance to her dwelling barred by a high perpendicular bank, so that her only ingress and egress is by an alley; that the dwelling is so situated upon the lot that the lot cannot be graded so as to give access to the street and that, to protect the lot from constant caving, which would finally destroy the house, would require the construction of a wall along its whole front, at great expense; that by notice to the city, delivered to its mayor she objected to and protested against the excavation before it was made, and gave notice that she would be damaged thereby, and would seek to hold the city responsible. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and an amendment filed, which, after the answer was filed, and a reply thereto, was withdrawn by the appellee, and the appellant thereupon withdrew its answer, and moved to dismiss the petition. The order sustaining the demurrer was set aside, and the demurrer overruled. Appellant then filed its answer, and a trial was had, which resulted in a verdict for appellee.

As there is no bill of exceptions, and as the record does not show that the instructions were objected to, the only question presented to this court is the sufficiency of the petition. Without determining the question whether this petition presents a case of partial destruction of the property by the city, amounting to an invasion of private rights, within the rule in the cases of City of Louisville v. Louisville Rolling Mill Co., 3 Bush, 424 and Kemper v. City of Louisville, 14 Bush, 90, we shall consider whether the rule of Wolfe v. Railroad Co., 15 B. Mon. 404, Keasy v. City of Louisville, 4 Dana, 154, Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 B. Mon. 763, and Bridge Co. v. Foot, 9 Bush, 264, that a municipal corporation has authority to grade or regrade a street for a public purpose without incurring responsibility to the owners of abutting lots, although the street might be raised several feet above the level of the lot, and that the citizen must submit to such incidental disadvantages as resulted therefrom, has been altered by section 242 of the present constitution. The general rule was, as stated in Dill. Mun. Corp. § 990, that: "Municipal corporations, acting under authority conferred by the legislature to make and repair, or to grade, level, and improve, streets, if they keep within the limits of the street, and do not trespass upon or invade private property, and exercise reasonable care and skill in the performance of the work resolved upon, are not answerable to the adjoining owner, whose lands are not actually taken, trespassed upon, or invaded, for consequential damages to his premises, unless there is a provision in the constitution of the state, in the charter of the corporation, or in some statute, creating the liability." The constitution of 1850 provided, in section 14 of the bill of rights, that no "man's property be taken or applied to public use without the consent of his representatives, and without just compensation being previously made to him." The present constitution, in addition to the section just quoted, which is contained in section 13 of the bill of rights, provides, in section 242: "Municipal and other corporations, and individuals invested with the privilege of taking private property for public use, shall make just compensation for property taken, injured or destroyed by them; which compensation shall be paid before such taking, or paid or secured, at the election of such corporation or individual, before such injury or destruction." The adoption of this section, in addition to the provisions of section 13, in our view undoubtedly indicated an intention to change the organic law of the state, and to abolish the requirement of direct physical injury to the property in order to establish a claim for damages. The language used is that municipal corporations shall make just compensation for property taken, injured, or destroyed by them. The city undoubtedly has the right to take private property, having the right of eminent domain. It also has the undoubted right to improve the streets for the public use, in proper manner, when thereto authorized by legislative authority. If, however, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • Johnson v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 6 Julio 1909
    ... ... 35, ... 31 P. 313, 32 P. 214, 18 L.R.A. 161; City of Vicksburg v ... Herman, 72 Miss. 211, 215, 16 So. 434; City of ... Henderson v. McClain, 102 Ky. 402, 43 S.W. 700, 39 ... L.R.A. 349; Rigney v. City of Chicago, 102 Ill. 64; ... City of Elgin v. Eaton, 83 Ill. 535, 25 ... ...
  • Adams & Sullivan v. Sengel
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 2 Noviembre 1917
    ... ... name of Adams & Sullivan, under a contract with the city of ... Louisville, for that purpose, undertook to open out and widen ... the bed of Bear Grass ... S.W. 873; City v. Jephson, 53 S.W. 1046, 21 Ky. Law ... Rep. 1028; City of Henderson v. McClain, 102 Ky ... 402, 43 S.W. 700, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1450, 39 L. R. A. 349; ... City v ... ...
  • Barfield v. Gleason
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 22 Junio 1901
    ... ... purpose of giving the appellants relief against the city, so ... as to do justice between the parties, though the claim of ... each appellant against the ... street. It may be assumed that by a case of City of ... Henderson v. McCain (Ky.) 43 S.W. 700, 39 L.R.A. 349, it ... has been settled that a change of grade ... ...
  • C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Wadsworth Electric Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 3 Junio 1930
    ... ... by change of street grades on ground that they contracted merely to indemnify city ...         A city ordinance, accepted by railroad companies, provided that all damages to ... Beeler, 113 Ky. 221, 67 S.W. 995, 996, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 174; City of Henderson v. McClain, 102 Ky. 402, 43 S.W. 700, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1450, 39 L.R.A. 349; Yates v. Big Sandy R.R ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT