Franklin v. Board of Lights and Water Works
| Decision Date | 05 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 19525,19525 |
| Citation | 95 S.E.2d 685,212 Ga. 757 |
| Parties | Lamar FRANKLIN v. BOARD OF LIGHTS AND WATER WORKS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
H. C. Schroeder, Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
Claud M. Hicks, J. Douglas Henderson, H. S. Willingham, Marietta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Property dedicated to a public use may by the dedicatee be put to all customary uses within the definition of the use. Brown v. City of East Point, 148 Ga. 85(3), 95 S.E. 962; Donalson v. Georgia Power & Light Co., 175 Ga. 462(6), 165 S.E. 440. And streets may be used for many purposes other than that of travel, such as the construction of sewers and drains, the laying of gas and water lines, the erection of telephone and telegraph wires, and a variety of other improvements such as the installation of sidewalks, the growing of grass, flowers and trees for the purpose of beautification and ornamentation, beneath, upon, and above the surface, to which in modern times they have been subjected and which are commonly called 'urban servitudes.' See 25 Am. Jur. 462, § 167; 385, § 72; City of Albany v. Lippitt, 191 Ga. 756, 763, 13 S.E.2d 807.
2. Progress will not deny the transfer of the benefits of urbanization to every nook and corner of our rural community, and the mere fact that a use of a county road is involved rather than an urban street in a municipality will make no difference, since the rights of the public in the streets and roads broaden with the growth of the community.
3. Where, as in this case, the petitioner alleges that he is the owner of the fee of a county public road in Cobb County, Georgia, encumbered with the rights of the general public to use it for travel, and that a municipal corporation is laying a water line down said road without payment of just compensation to him, but fails to allege whether or not the installation is without the consent of the alleged dedicatee, the governing authority of Cobb County which has the power, under Georgia Laws, Nov.-Dec.Sess.1953, p. 2164, to prohibit or grant said use, and which may very well have approved this use for the transfer of an urban servitude to the rural community--he fails to allege a cause of action for equitable relief, and the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition.
4. The case differs on its facts from that of Donalson v. Georgia Power & Light Co., 175 Ga. 462, 165 S.E. 440, supra, involving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Datry
...dedicated to a public use may . . . be put to all customary uses within the definition of the use.' Franklin v. Board of Lights &c Works, 212 Ga. 757(1), 95 S.E.2d 685 (1956); City of Albany v. Lippitt, 191 Ga. 756, 762, 13 S.E.2d 807 (1941); Brown v. City of East Point, 148 Ga. 85(3), 95 S......
-
R. G. Foster & Co. v. Fountain, s. 20887
...to by counsel in oral argument, and the cases of City of Albany v. Lippitt, 191 Ga. 756, 13 S.E.2d 807, and Franklin v. Board of Lights & Water Works, 212 Ga. 757, 95 S.E.2d 685, are not in point on their facts with the present The jury's verdict for $500 damages for the petitioner can not ......
-
Montgomery v. City of Sylvania
...to all customary uses within the definition of the use.' " MARTA v. Datry, 235 Ga. 568, 575, 220 S.E.2d 905; Franklin v. Bd. of Lights, etc., Works, 212 Ga. 757(1), 95 S.E.2d 685. Thus, once the original easement is effective, additional electrical lines may be placed on the poles. Further,......
-
Hutchins v. Williams
... ... tax purposes for the year 1954 by arbitration and the Board of Tax Assessors were, as a matter of law, required to ... ...