Columbus Waterworks Co. v. Long
Decision Date | 11 April 1899 |
Citation | 121 Ala. 245,25 So. 702 |
Parties | COLUMBUS WATERWORKS CO. v. LONG ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from probate court, Lee county; W. C. Robinson, Judge.
Condemnation proceedings by the Columbus Waterworks Company against Emma Long and others. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
This was a proceeding which was instituted by the appellant, the Columbus Waterworks Company filing an application to the probate court of Lee county for the condemnation of certain lands in said county belonging to the appellees, who were made parties respondent, to the petitioner's use.
The petition describes the lands sought to be conveyed, gives the names, ages and residences of the owners thereof, and alleges that the petitioner, the Columbus Waterworks Company, is a corporation under the laws of Georgia, with its residence and place of business in the city of Columbus, Georgia "that it is a corporation, supplying water for the public to the inhabitants of the towns of Ph nix City and Girard, in this state, and Columbus, in the state of Georgia and that in order to prevent its source of water supply from being polluted, it is necessary for it to acquire title ownership and control" of said lands; "that petitioner has endeavored to acquire title, ownership and control of said lands by purchase from the owners thereof but that petitioner and the said owners cannot agree as to the price to be paid for said lands; that petitioner herein seeks the condemnation of said lands so as to vest in it the absolute title, ownership and control of and to the same in itself; that the use and purpose for which it is sought to be used is for a watershed for its reservoir, so as to prevent the pollution of its source of water supply. The prayer is for process, for a jury to assess the damages, and for an order of condemnation. This is substantially all the allegations of the petition.
To the petition, the respondents demurred upon the following grounds: Upon the hearing of these demurrers, the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 1/2, and 10 were sustained, and the 7, 8 and 9 grounds were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grover Irrigation and Land Company v. Lovella Ditch, Reservoir and Irrigation Company
...state, and "indirectly contribute to the prosperity of the whole community." The obiter dictum found in the Alabama case of Water Works Co. v. Long, 25 So. 702, is cited the sole authority for the text in Lewis on Eminent Domain, and is neither controlling nor applicable here, for the reaso......
-
Twin City Power Co. v. Savannah River Elec. Co.
... ... trespassers and [163 S.C. 463] tortfeasors. So long as the ... property was of sufficient value to secure the payment of the ... debt, the trustee ... 682, 686 ... To the ... same effect is Columbus Waterworks Co. v. Long, 121 ... Ala. 245, 25 So. 702 ... [161 S.E. 762] ... ...
-
Seabrook v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
... ... There could be no final ... determination of the rights of the parties in the action so ... long as the taking of the property, payment of the award, ... and vesting of the right was optional ... 229; ... Washington Water Power Co. v. Waters, 19 Idaho, 595, ... 115 P. 682; Columbus Waterworks Co. v. Long, 121 ... Ala. 245, 25 So. 702; In re Townsend, 39 N.Y. 171 ... ...
-
The Great Western Natural Gas And Oil Co. v. Hawkins
... ... Brewer, ... 54 Ala. 288; McCulley v. Cunningham, 96 ... Ala. 583, 11 So. 694; Columbus Water Works Co. v ... Long, 121 Ala. 245, 25 So. 702; Loughbridge ... v. Harris, 42 Ga ... ...