Mayor, Etc., of City of Knoxville v. Harth
| Decision Date | 06 October 1900 |
| Citation | 58 S.W. 650 |
| Parties | MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF KNOXVILLE v. HARTH. SAME v. GALBRAITH et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeals from circuit court, Knox county; Joseph W. Sneed, Judge.
Actions by H. A. Harth against the mayor and aldermen of the city of Knoxville, and by Galbraith & Maloney against the same. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Ruben L. Cates, for appellant. Sansom, Welcker & Parker, for appellees.
These are actions against the city by the citizens and property owners for damages to their property which abuts on Cleveland street, in the city. It appears that one Lawson Irwin, a contractor, was employed by the trustees of Grey Cemetery to make some improvements on its property, which required the use of a large quantity of earth. He saw John J. Littleton, chairman, and John Hudiburg, associate member, of the board of public works, and from them obtained permission to get the earth from Cleveland street by grading it. The chairman directed the city engineer to establish a grade for the street, and he proceeded to do so, setting stakes for the guidance of Irwin. The city did not employ or pay Irwin for the work, but simply permitted him to get the earth from the street under the guidance of its engineer. The street had not been previously graded, and there was no action of the board directing it to be done, or establishing the grade, and no ordinance passed. The only authority for the work on the street was the permission given by Littleton and Hudiburg as individuals, and not as a board. Plaintiffs' property abutted on this street, and their ingress and egress were seriously injured by the grading, and their property was thereby depreciated materially in value. The trial judge, hearing the case without a jury, gave judgment for plaintiff Harth for $225, and in favor of plaintiffs Galbraith & Maloney for $75, and the city has appealed.
The counsel for the city makes no complaint of the amount awarded, and does not question the fact that damage was done, but the contention is that the work was not done by the city, nor primarily for its benefit, and that the work was not authorized to be done by the city, but was done simply by permission of two of the three members of the board of public works, as individuals, and not in any board or official capacity, and under this state of facts the city would not be liable. The charter of the city provides that the board of public works shall have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callahan v. Town of Middleton
...not lost its right, factoral or legal, in the street. Wood v. Foster & Creighton Co., 191 Tenn. 478, 235 S.W.2d 1; City of Knoxville v. Harth, 105 Tenn. 436, 58 S.W. 650. When the city permits the county or the State to construct highways through it, acting in conjunction with the Highway D......
-
City of Charleston v. Ailey
...for the taking of his property for the purpose of improving or repairing a street or highway within such city. Knoxville v. Harth, 105 Tenn. 436, 58 S.W. 650, 80 Am.St.Rep. 901; Knoxville v. Hunt, 156 Tenn. 7, 299 S.W. 789; Wood v. Foster & Creighton Co., 191 Tenn. 478, 235 S.W.2d In Wood v......
-
Wood v. Foster & Creighton Co.
...be answerable to Wood for the damages to his property which were necessarily occasioned by the improvement done. In City of Knoxville v. Harth, 105 Tenn. 436, 58 S.W. 650, it was held that a municipality, permitting a third person to grade its streets, was liable for resulting damages to th......
-
Williams v. M. C. West Const. Co.
...does the work. Wood v. Foster & Creighton Co., 191 Tenn. 478, 235 S.W.2d 1 (1950). See also Knoxville v. Harth and Knoxville v. Galbraith, 105 Tenn. 436, 58 S.W. 650 (1900); City of Knoxville v. Hunt, 156 Tenn. 7, 299 S.W. 789 (1927); and City of Knoxville v. Phillips, 162 Tenn. 328, 36 S.W......