Layman v. Beeler

Citation113 Ky. 221,67 S.W. 995
PartiesLAYMAN v. BEELER et al. [1]
Decision Date30 April 1902
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

Appeal from circuit court, Larue county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Willis Layman against George Beeler and others to recover damages for injury to land. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

J. P O'Meara and Twyman & Hundley, for appellant.

Sam Y Jones, for appellee Larue county. O. M. Mather and Chas. M Creal, for appellees Beeler and Walters.

O'REAR J.

Appellant was the owner of a tract of land in Larue county through which was located a county road. This road divided appellant's land into two parts of about equal size. This road had existed in that condition, and upon the grade at which it was found when the acts complained of in this suit were committed, for about 20 years. The county of Larue determined to alter the grade of the road under the authority of section 4306 of the Kentucky Statutes, which provides "The fiscal court of each county shall have charge and supervision of the public roads and bridges therein, and shall prescribe necessary rules and regulations for repairing and keeping same in order, and for the proper management of all roads and bridges in said county under and subject to the provisions of said act." Section 4339 of the Kentucky Statutes provides for the cutting down of hills on county roads, and for letting the work. Larue county let to appellees Walters and Beeler the contract for repairing this road, in accordance with certain specifications, which involved the cutting down of the hill and ditching the road to such an extent that it is alleged it impaired the value of plaintiff's lands, making it impractical, without large expenditure, for him to go from one part of his farm to the other. A demurrer to plaintiff's petition was sustained as to Larue county, upon the idea, it is said, that the county was not liable to an action for tort. This, as a general proposition, is true, and there is no liability upon the part of the county unless it be authorized expressly or by necessary implication of statute. Downing v. Mason Co., 87 Ky. 208, 8 S.W. 264, 12 Am. St. Rep. 473. The question is, was there such an authorization in the case at bar? Section 242 of the present constitution is as follows: "Municipal and other corporations, and individuals invested with the privilege of taking private property for public use, shall make just compensation for property taken, injured or destroyed by them; which compensation shall be paid before such taking, or paid or secured, at the election of such corporation or individual before such injury or destruction. The general assembly shall not deprive any person of an appeal from any preliminary assessment for damages against any such corporation or individual made by commissioners or otherwise; and upon appeal from such preliminary assessment, the amount of such damages shall, in all cases, be determined by a jury, according to the course of the common law." It has been held, under the foregoing section of the constitution, that where a municipality, by the erection of public works or improvements, so damages the adjacent property of the owner as to impair its value, that is the taking, injuring, or destroying of property within the contemplation of the section quoted. City of Ludlow v. Detweller (Ky.) 47 S.W. 881; City of Mt. Sterling v. Jephson (Ky.) 53 S.W. 1046; City of Henderson v. McLain (Ky.) 43 S.W. 700, 39 L. R. A. 349.

The matter of opening public roads, their improvement and repair are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the fiscal court of the county. This tribunal is authorized to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Ward
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 17 Febrero 1931
    ...public at large, for the abatement of the obstruction, or for damages to adjacent property resulting therefrom. Layman v. Beeler, 113 Ky. 221, 67 S.W. 995, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 174; Bourbon Stock Yard Co. v. Wooley, 76 S.W. 28, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 477; Salmon v. Martin, 156 Ky. 309, 160 S.W. 1058; Y......
  • C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Wadsworth Electric Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 3 Junio 1930
    ...his own wrongful act by pleading that he was employed or directed by a person who had no lawful authority.'" Layman v. Beeler, 113 Ky. 221, 67 S.W. 995, 996, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 174; City of Henderson v. McClain, 102 Ky. 402, 43 S.W. 700, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1450, 39 L.R.A. 349; Yates v. Big Sandy ......
  • Kentucky State Park Com'n v. Wilder
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 18 Junio 1935
    ... ... processes, it must nevertheless render just compensation ... thereafter. As stated in Layman v. Beeler, 113 Ky ... 221, 67 S.W. 995, 996, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 174: ...          "The ... provision of the constitution which requires ... ...
  • Stathers v. Garrard Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 21 Agosto 2013
    ...idle to give to a party a right without a remedy to enforce it.”228 Ky. at 612, 15 S.W.2d at 523 (quoting Layman v. Beeler, 113 Ky. 221, 67 S.W. 995, 996, 24 Ky.L.Rptr. 174 (1902) (internal quotation marks omitted)).7 In sum, sections 13 and 242 of the Kentucky Constitution represent a waiv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT