Hardy v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 23 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | 8576. |
| Citation | 190 S.E. 680,118 W.Va. 440 |
| Parties | HARDY et al. v. SIMPSON, Road Com'r. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted March 9, 1937.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Section 9, article 3 of the Constitution, which provides that "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, without just compensation," requires action on the part of the state, its subdivisions or instrumentalities, to ascertain damages and compensate owners of property for the taking thereof or damage thereto incident to any public improvement for which such property may be appropriated.
2. Where the construction or improvement of a state highway results in damage to private property, short of the actual taking thereof, it is the duty of the State Road Commission under Code, 54-2-14, and within a reasonable time after the completion of the work out of which such damage arises, to institute proceedings to ascertain the damage to which the owner of such property may be entitled.
3. In instituting a proceeding to ascertain compensation for damages to property not actually taken, resulting from any work on a public highway under the control of the State Road Commission, a reasonable discretion is vested in said commission as to the time when such proceeding shall be instituted; but it may not abuse such discretion by delaying such proceeding beyond a reasonable time after such work is completed, in the ordinary and usual course of construction and without undue delay. Mandamus against the Road Commission may be resorted to in case of the abuse of such discretion to compel the institution of such proceeding.
Original mandamus proceeding by Bessie Hardy and another against Burr H. Simpson, State Road Commissioner.
Writ refused.
Clarence W. Meadows, Atty. Gen., and Forrest B. Poling, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Bessie Hardy, the owner of real estate in the City of Bluefield, and William F. Deitz, the owner of a mortgage or lien thereon, seek, by writ of mandamus, to compel the defendant, as State Road Commissioner, to institute condemnation proceedings to ascertain the amount of damages to said property, occasioned by the construction, maintenance, and use of a primary state highway on which the property of the said Hardy abuts. No part of the property involved is actually taken, but it is alleged that the same is damaged by reason of a change in the grade of the street, rendering access thereto difficult, if not impossible, and that the ordinary processes of law afford to the plainti ffs no relief from the situation thus created.
Section 9, article 3 of the Constitution provides: "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, without just compensation; nor shall the same be taken by any company, incorporated for the purposes of internal improvement, until just compensation shall have been paid, or secured to be paid, to the owner; and when private property shall be taken, or damaged, for public use, or for the use of such corporation, the compensation to the owner shall be ascertained in such manner, as may be prescribed by general law; Provided, that when required by either of the parties, such compensation shall be ascertained by an impartial jury of twelve freeholders."
From this provision of the Constitution, it is clear that private property cannot be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation; nor can it be taken for purposes of internal improvement without such compensation. There is, however, one distinction: As to property taken for public use, the compensation need not be paid before the taking, Keystone Bridge Company v. Summers, 13 W.Va. 476; while as to property taken for purposes of internal improvement the same cannot be taken "until just compensation shall have been paid or secured to be paid." In either event, the compensation shall be ascertained in such manner as may be prescribed by general law, with the right of trial by a jury of freeholders guaranteed. The property, or rights, of the plaintiffs involved herein, will be devoted to a public use, and come under that provision of the Constitution which permits their taking without compensation being paid in advance of such taking. Of course, the Constitution guarantees ultimate compensation, but the Legislature may make reasonable provisions for the ascertainment and payment thereof. As to property actually taken, the Legislature has provided for such taking in advance of payment of compensation (Code 54-2-14), but this provision contemplates a proceeding to condemn, because it provides that such proceeding may not be dismissed without the consent of the landowner. A recent act of the legislature, Senate Bill 188, 1937 Session, and now effective, provides for the ascertainment of damages for property actually taken "after a reasonable time has elapsed for the completion of the work upon the particular property so entered upon and taken possession of." This act is mentioned as showing the legislative policy.
Damage to property, where no actual taking occurs, can stand on no higher ground than where property is actually entered upon and appropriated to a public use. True, the law contemplates a condemnation proceeding prior to actual taking, but compensation may be thereafter determined; and it may be argued that the same course should be followed with respect to property damage; but there is the difference; the value of property actually taken, and damages to the residue above peculiar benefits, can reasonably be ascertained at the time of the taking; probably a more equitable ascertainment can be made after the completion of the project for which the property is taken, and the legislative policy seems to be to delay compensation until there is a final and complete picture of the damage done, both in the actual taking and otherwise; on the other hand, the damage done to property where there is no actual taking, arises solely from the maintenance and use of the project (in this case a highway) after its completion. If it be said that damages to property are such as to amount to the taking of the same, the measure and extent of that taking cannot be made clear until the construction work is completed, and it is definitely known what elements of damage arise from the new situation. This reasoning more strongly applies to any character of damage less than actual taking of property. In a case of damage only,...
To continue reading
Request your trial