Harreld v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 40808

• Decision Date: 09 June 1958
• Docket Number: No. 40808,40808
• Citation: 234 Miss. 1,103 So.2d 852
• Parties: W. E. HARRELD and Harreld Chevrolet Company, a Corporation, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 852

103 So.2d 852

234 Miss. 1

W. E. HARRELD and Harreld Chevrolet Company, a Corporation, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 40808.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 9, 1958.

Charles W. Busby, Heidelberg, Woodliff, Castle & Franks, Jackson, for appellant.

Satterfield, Shell, Williams and Buford, Jackson, Matthew Harper, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., John C. Satterfield, K. Hayes Callicutt, Jackson, for appellee.

McGEHEE, Chief Justice.

The appellants, W. E. Harreld and the Harreld Chevrolet Company, a corporation owned by W. E. Harreld and his wife with the exception of one qualifying share, sued the appellee and cross-appellant, Mississippi State Highway Commission, in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, for the sum of $352,800 for W. E. Harreld and $51,470 for the Harreld Chevrolet Company for alleged damages claimed to have been sustained on account of the anticipated closure of direct access at two points on the new four lane U. S. Highway 51 south of the City of Jackson of a new link of highway on U. S. Highway 51, as now being constructed.

The Chancery Court of Hinds County upon the trial, after hearing voluminous testimony contained in an eight-volume record and hearing the arguments of counsel, and taking the case under advisement upon the submission of briefs filed by counsel, found as a fact that the appellant W. E. Harreld owns frontage of 2,182 feet more or less on the east side of the said new highway and 2,409 feet on the west side thereof, and adjacent thereto; that the appellant Harreld Chevrolet Company owns adjacent to said new highway a frontage of 181.7 feet more or less, all beginning approximately 3.3 miles south of what is known as the 'clover-leaf' in South Jackson, and which new highway runs from the said clover-leaf through the woods between the old U. S. Highway 51 and the track of the Illinois Central Railroad for a distance of approximately fifteen miles to the northernmost corporate limits of the Town of Terry, in Hinds County, Mississippi, as now constructed, and being constructed, as a link in the new U. S. Highway 51 of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The trial court further found that the complainants purchased from the Capital-State Realty Company, which was owned and controlled by W. E. Harreld, and from W. E. Harreld, individually, their original tract of land, consisting of approximately 76 acres, in the year 1953 for approximately $40,000.

On April 14, 1953, certain judgments were rendered by consent in condemnation proceedings in the County Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, for three parcels of the lands of the complainants, one of which said judgments was in favor of the Capital-State Realty Company, et al., predecessor in title of the appellants, for the sum of $12,800, one being in favor of the appellant W. E. Harreld, et al. for $16,700, and the other in favor of the Harreld Chevrolet Company, et al. for the sum of $3,000, but it appears that one parcel of said land is not involved in the above-mentioned frontage on the said new highway. The said three consent judgments aggregated the sum of $32,500.

At the time of the institution of the said condemnation proceedings and at the time of the rendition of the three above-mentioned consent judgments, the State Legislature had enacted Chapter 6 of the Laws of the Ex.Sess. of 1949, and Section 11, Subsection (h), thereof provides, among other things, for certain powers and authority of the State Highway Commission, as follows: 'To provide for boulevards stops, restricted entrances to main highways and access driveways, neutral grounds and roadside parks, and to erect all suitable direction and warning signs, and to provide access roads in or to municipalities where necessary; to provide limited access facilities when and where deemed necessary, such a facility being defined as a highway or streets especially designed or designated for through traffic and over, from or to which owners or occupants of abutting land or other persons have only such limited right or easement of access as may be prescribed by the State Highway Commission * * *'

In other words, the consent judgments rendered in the condemnation proceedings on April 14, 1953, resulted in the Mississippi State Highway Commission acquiring all of the power and authority conferred upon the said Commission by Chapter 6, Laws Ex.Sess. of 1949.

Subsequent to the acquisition of the right of way through appellants' property, the State Highway Commission constructed a four lane paved highway which divided the property of the appellants in such manner as to leave to them respectively, the frontage thereon hereinbefore mentioned. There were also constructed median strips dividing two of the through highway lanes from the other two, with crossovers at reasonable distances from each other, with suitable interchanges for going to the outer through lanes from either side of the right of way, with frontage roads on the right of way for access from the abutting property to such crossovers and interchanges from such property on each side of the four lane through highway.

During the course of the construction of the said new highway on the right of way through the property of the appellants, the said appellant W. E. Harreld obtained from the Highway Commission a temporary permit for the construction of some direct access roads with entrances into the main traveled lanes of said new highway at two points, one at the point where Daniel Lake Boulevard intersects said new highway, and the other just south of his property where Mason Boulevard now intersects with the said new highway, and where there is a crossover through the median strip of said main highway.

On March 25, 1952, the State Highway Commission, pursuant to its authority under Chapter 6 of the Laws of 1949, Ex.Sess., established by a reasolution duly passed and entered upon its minutes a policy setting forth that: 'Direct entrance will further be provided to the highway on a temporary basis, if frontage roads are not in existence nor intended for immediate construction, it being later intended when property adjoining the highway has developed to sufficient extent to justify a frontage road, at which time, if the highway or street connection is on a temporary basis, that said highway or street connect with said frontage road rather than directly with the main traveled way.' The resolution further provided that: 'It is further a policy of this Commission where adequate rights of way widths can be provided to provide frontage roads adequate to controlled access highways when development of property adjoining the highway and traffic demands require it. Interim or temporary permits will be issued, upon written requests, to individuals for access to the next traveled lane when such frontage road is not immediately available, but all permits of this nature will be classified as temporary until the frontage road might be constructed. At such time frontage road is constructed, all said temporary connections will be removed and the property served by the frontage roads which will be connected to the highway only at points which are served by openings in the medial divider. Access from the frontage road to the highway may be provided by connecting said frontage roads or streets or designated connections which have access to and across the traveled way.'

The two permits issued to the appellant W. E. Harreld for the construction of direct access roads with entrances into the main traveled lanes of the said new highway at the two points hereinbefore mentioned, contain the following language to wit: 'That the said Highway Department may at any time require and compel the removal or reconstruction of said driveway or other facility therein described or referred to as and when said State Highway Department deems it necessary. All expense of said removal or reconstruction is to be borne exclusively by the applicant, and the State Highway Department is to be in no way liable.'

The suit of the appellants sought an injunction to prohibit the State Highway Commission from closing the entrances onto the main traveled lanes at the two points hereinbefore mentioned, but which injunction was denied by the trial court. However, the trial court granted the appellants an injunction to the extent of requiring the Highway Commission to keep the said entrances open until the Commission shall have constructed a frontage road on the highway on each side of the main traveled four lane highway so as to afford the appellants reasonable access into the main highway at the interchanges at McDowell Road north and Savanna Street to the south, with complainants having full, free and complete access to said surface or frontage roads at all points along their property on both sides of said main highway.

The trial court further found as a fact that the plans of the State Highway Department shown to Harreld at the time of the acquisition of the right of way through the land clearly indicated that he was to have access to the main travelways both north and south on the new highway with complete crossovers at the two points hereinbefore mentioned, one at the Daniel Loop Boulevard crossing, and the other just south of his property where Mason Boulevard now intersects the said new highway, and where there has been constructed a crossover through the median strip of the said main highway; but that the plans showing access at these two points, disclosed thereon a 'Note. This is a future multiple land limited access highway. Temporary private driveways and ramps may be constructed where shown on the plans for use until such time as this highway is completed as a multiple lane highway, after which time temporary driveways and ramps may be restricted to connect to the highway lane or service drive adjacent to the property served.'

In addition to this, the trial court found, and correctly so, 'that...