Pearsall v. Board of Sup'rs of Eaton County
| Decision Date | 19 April 1889 |
| Citation | Pearsall v. Board of Sup'rs of Eaton County, 42 N.W. 77, 74 Mich. 558 (Mich. 1889) |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEARSALL v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF EATON COUNTY. |
Certiorari, on the petition of Roxie A. Pearsall, to review the proceedings of the board of supervisors of the county of Eaton in discontinuing a highway.
The objection of this suit is to reverse the action of the board of supervisors in discontinuing a highway known as the "Allegan and Lansing State Road."Mrs. Pearsall the petitioner, owns 80 acres of land in the township of Oneida, in the county of Eaton, and which constitutes her farm upon which she resides and carries on farming.Her house and other buildings are located on the said state road, the house being on one side of the road, and the barn upon the other, and the road runs diagonally across the north end of the 80 acres in a south-westerly direction.Mrs. Pearsall states in her petition for the writ that the road sought to be discontinued by the board of supervisors has been located and used where it now runs for more than 40 years, and its discontinuance will deprive her of access to any highway; that her orchard and other improvements about her house upon the farm have been made near said road; and that its discontinuance will greatly inconvenience her in working the farm, and lessen the value of her property; and she asks a review of the proceedings of the board of supervisors by which the discontinuance now claimed has been effected.Similar action was taken by the board of supervisors last year, and brought under review before this court at its last October term, and the proceedings were quashed.See39 N.W. 578.The constitutional question was not then considered.In this case the proceeding seems to have been renewed in substantially the same form and manner as before.The constitutional objection, however, to the action of the board is the only one argued, and now relied on for reversal.It is not pretended but that Mrs. Pearsall has acquired valuable rights in the location and use of the road where it now runs; that her property will be considerably lessened in value if the road is discontinued.It is claimed by Mrs. Pearsall that she had no notice of the intention of the board to take any action in the premises, or that the subject was before it for consideration until after the resolution had been passed by the board discontinuing the road.Counsel for Mrs. Pearsall claim that she was entitled to such notice, and should have been allowed the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Mackie v. Watt
...'shall be taken or damaged.' Throughout the years this State has adhered to the principle that 'taking' must be given a broad construction and not a construction in a narrow sense, and in
Pearsall v. Board of Supervisors of Eaton County, 74 Mich. 558, pp. 561, 562, 42 N.W. 77, pp. 77, 78, 4 L.R.A. 193, this Court "The constitutional provision is adopted for the protection of and security to the rights of the individual as against the government,' and the term 'taking' should not be used... -
Bott v. Commission of Natural Resources of State of Mich. Dept. of Natural Resources
...where the value is destroyed by the action of the government, or serious injury is inflicted to the property itself, or exclusion of the owner from its enjoyment, or from any of the appurtenances thereto."
Pearsall v. Eaton County Supervisors, 74 Mich. 558, 561, 42 N.W. 77 (1889).This approach to determining whether a "taking" has occurred has been applied by this Court in a variety of circumstances, including elimination of access to property: Ranson v. Sault Ste Marie, 143 Mich. 661,... -
Hubbell v. City of Des Moines
...Lewis, Eminent Domain (2d Ed.); Kingsbury's Case, 101 Ind. at page 211, 51 Am. Rep. 749; Bayer's Case, 7 Colo. 113, 2 Pac. 6; Bigelow's Case, 111 Cal. 559, 44 Pac. 307;
Pearsall's Case, 74 Mich. 558, 42 N. W. 77, 4 L. R. A. 193; Homan's Case, 74 Mich. 699, 42 N. W. 167; Lackland's Case, 31 Mo. 180; Heller's Case, 28 Kan. 625; Abendroth's Case, 122 N. Y. 1, 25 N. E. 496, 11 L. R. A. 634, 19 Am. St. Rep. 461; Dorman's Case, 13 Fla. 538, 7 Am.Spencer v. Point Pleasant Ry. Co., 23 W. Va. 406;Lorie v. North Chicago Ry. Co. (C. C.) 32 Fed. 270;Morris v. City of Philadelphia, 199 Pa. 357, 49 Atl. 70. As holding to a contrary doctrine, see Pearsall v. Board of Supervisors, reported in 74 Mich. 558, 42 N. W. 77, 4 L. R. A. 193; Horton's Case, 99 Mich. 423, 58 N. W. 369;Steinhart Case, 137 Cal. 575, 70 Pac. 629, 59 L. R. A. 404, 92 Am. St. Rep. 183;State ex rel. Smith v. Superior Court of King's... -
Levee Dist. No. 9 v. Farmer
...owner, whose lot abutted on a street, to damages resulting from the use of the street by railroads, such use being an additional servitude. The only case cited by the author in which the question at bar was discussed is
Pearsall v. Supervisors, 74 Mich. 558, and the opinion in that case concludes as follows: “ The statute of 1887, at page 185, recognizes the right of Mrs. Pearsall to her damages in this case, and has undertaken to provide a mode for obtaining them, but is not the...