Montgomery County v. Tipton

Decision Date31 January 1891
Citation15 S.W. 249
PartiesMONTGOMERY COUNTY v. TIPTON et al.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county.

E. C. Orear, J. C. Elliston, and J. H. Hazelrigg, for appellant.

Young, Mitchell & Young and E. W. Hines, for appellee.

PRYOR, J.

The county court of Montgomery county, on the application of James D. Tipton, established a county road that in the opinion of that court was necessary for the use of the public. The case is now in this court on the appeal of the county, the appellant claiming that the road should not have been opened, and that the proceedings were irregular. The county court has entered an order saying, in effect, that the road was necessary for the convenience of the public; and if the county has the right to an appeal, and we find no provision of the statute or Code authorizing it, the merit of the controversy is with the applicant. The statute provides that the county attorney shall oppose the wrongful alteration or discontinuance of a public road, and in 8 Bush, 444, in the Case of Kimberlin, it was held that the county attorney might appeal in the name of the commonwealth. There is no provision requiring the county attorney to oppose the opening of a new road, and, while we think such a duty is incumbent upon him, where the county court determines the necessity for the road, and establishes it, no appeal should be allowed unless directed by the county court, conceding that the right of appeal exists in behalf of the county. The statute provides that it shall be the duty of the county attorney, when directed by the county court, to institute and conduct suits, motions, and prosecutions of every description before any of the courts of this commonwealth in which the county is interested. Article 3, c. 5, § 7, Gen. St. Ky. In this case the county court wants the road established, and in our opinion the appeal in such a case should be dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State ex rel. To the Use of Tadlock v. Mooneyham
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1923
    ... ... 573 STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. to the Use of T. C. TADLOCK, Prosecuting Attorney of Jasper County, Missouri, Respondent, v. ROBERT A. MOONEYHAM and S. S. NICKS, County Treasurer of Jasper County, ... for public use, unless directed by the county court to take ... such appeal. Montgomery County v. Tipton, 15 S.W ... 249. (7) A prosecuting attorney of a county has no authority ... to ... ...
  • 10 OF PIERCE COUNTY, Bates v. School Dist. No. 10 of Pierce County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1907
    ... ... State ex rel ... Atty. Gen. v. Seattle Gas Co., 28 Wash. 488, 68 P. 946, ... 70 P. 114; Montgomery County v. Tipton (Ky.) 15 S.W ... 249. In this state the prosecuting attorney is also the ... county attorney, [45 Wash. 502] and the ... ...
  • Breckinridge County v. Rhodes
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • December 6, 1907
    ...of the lawmaking power." We confess that the reasoning of this latter case appeals more strongly to us than that of the case of Montgomery County v. Tipton, supra. In the recent case of Jefferson County v. 111 Ky. 286, 63 S.W. 613, the court held: "The right to institute, defend, and conduc......
  • Sikes v. Page
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1891
    ... ...          Appeal ... from circuit court, Barren county ...          Action ... by F.S. Page to foreclose a mortgage on which defendant Jesse ... ...

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