Humphreys v. Dickerson
| Decision Date | 13 December 1948 |
| Docket Number | 40813 |
| Parties | Truman Humphreys, Appellant, v. Lloyd Dickerson, Warner Brown and Floyd Cleeton as Judges of the County Court of Sullivan County, Missouri, and E. C. Petty, Gird McCullough, U. G. Humphreys and George Kent as Surviving Members of the Last Board of Supervisors of Big Medicine Drainage District No. 1 of Sullivan and Grundy Counties, Missouri, Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
From the Circuit Court of Sullivan County, Civil Appeal, Judge G Derk Green
Affirmed
Injunction. Plaintiff-appellant, owner of certain farm lands in Sullivan County, sought to enjoin the respondents, the Judges of the County Court of Sullivan County, Missouri, and the surviving Members of the Board of Supervisors of Big Medicine Drainage District No. 1 of Sullivan and Grundy Counties, from entering into a certain contract. The decree below dismissed plaintiff's petition for injunction and made certain findings prayed in the District's answer. From the decree plaintiff has appealed. We herein designate the parties as plaintiff, County and District.
The theory of plaintiff's petition was that a certain old county road abutted a portion of his farm along the south side thereof; that District's bridge over its present drainage canal, which intersected said county road, served as ingress and egress to a small portion (three and a half acres) of his farm; that due to the expiration of its charter District intended turning its said bridge over the County for repair and maintenance; that the bridge in question was in need of repairs; that District and County intended to execute a contract whereby for a certain sum to be paid by District to County, the latter would assume District's obligation to keep the bridge in repair; that District and County were without authority to execute such contract, and such action would result in irreparable damage to plaintiff.
County filed a general denial. District's answer admitted the bridge in question had been constructed by it, but that (after plaintiff's petition was filed) it had been washed away and destroyed by a flood in 1947; alleged that the bridge had been on and along what was once a county road, but that the old county road no longer existed as a public road; that there was no necessity for its use as a public or private road and no need for a bridge at that place; that all portions of plaintiff's farm were adequately served by an all-weather primary State Highway (No. 6) which paralleled the old county road for its entire distance through plaintiff's farm; that to erect a new bridge at a cost of about $18,000 would be of no value to plaintiff and expensive to District. District prayed the Chancellor to affirmatively find "that no public highway exists and no bridge is required across the drainage canal for either public or private use" and that District be not required to construct a bridge.
The trial court found as prayed in District's answer.
Plaintiff offered no proof whatever respecting any contract between the District and the County. Proof was adduced by defendants that no such contract was contemplated or considered.
The evidence established that new State Highway Number 6 (constructed about 1931) runs through plaintiff's farm is about 600 feet north of and parallels the old county road in question; that said Highway 6 adequately served all parts of plaintiff's farm; that since Highway 6 was constructed there has been no public use whatever of the old county road; that the old county road ended a short distance west of the intersection of the old county road with the drainage canal, and that a short distance east of the old channel of Medicine Creek it curved north to enter Highway 6; that the old county road is not passable, not used and cannot be used a public road; that many years ago, because there was no need for it, county removed the bridge over the old channel of Medicine Creek which was about 700 feet east of the drainage canal in question and on the old county road; that between the drainage canal and Highway 6 along the line of the old road there are three fences extending across and blocking the old line of the road; that that portion of the old line of the old county road formerly used for travel is now grown up in grass, weeds and brush, is badly eroded with ditches and impossible of travel and use, and for many years has neither been used by the public nor maintained by public monies; that no one lives along or adjacent to this portion of this old county road and no one uses or undertakes to use any portion of it as a means of ingress or egress to or from Highway 6; one of plaintiff's witnesses testified, "it is a useless, senseless thing to me, to build a bridge within half a quarter of this highway (Highway...
To continue reading
Request your trial