Peterson v. Bean
| Decision Date | 04 May 1900 |
| Citation | 61 P. 213,22 Utah 43 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | P. C. PETERSON, RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE T. BEAN, APPELLANT |
Appeal from the Sixth District Court, Sevier County. Hon. W. M McCarty, Judge.
Action for damages for trespass, and for a perpetual injunction restraining defendant from entering upon plaintiff's land and constructing a ditch thereon. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
Messrs King, Burton & King, and Grant C. Bagley, Esq., for appellant.
"Questions analogous to this one have frequently been before the courts, they have usually arisen over the construction of statutes authorizing the condemnation of property for railroad purposes, and the uniform holdings have been that when the terms of the statute have been general; that is simply authorizing the condemnation of land for railroad tracks, that this included (without the direct provision) land upon which to erect necessary depot buildings, side-tracks and switches.
In other words, the courts have sought by their interpretation of the statutes to give them full force and effect and for that reason they have not hesitated to construe the provisions so as to make it possible for the company to properly and successfully operate their railroad lines. Nashville & Chatanooga R. R. Co. v. Cowardine 11 Humphs. 348; State New Haven & D. R. Co. v. R. R. Com'rs, 36 Conn. 308, Sc. 15 A. 756, 10 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d Ed. p, 1055; Downing v. More, 12 Colo. 316; Moran v. Ross, 79 Cala. 159.
Under the statutes of this State, the enterprise sought to be engaged in by the defendant is public in its nature and, he had the right to condemn the right-of-way for his canal or ditch purposes, and for his power line. Revised Statutes, Sec. 3588.
The construction of Section 3841 of the Compiled Laws of Utah 1888, which provides that the right of eminent domain may be exercised in behalf of "steam and horse railroads" came before the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah, in the case of Ogden City Ry. Co. v. Ogden City, et al., 7 Utah, 208.
See also Lake Pleasanton Water Co. v. Contra Costs Water Co., 67 Cal. 659; Dayton Mining Co. v. Seawell, 11 Nev. 399; Overman S. M. Co. v. Corcoran, 15 Nev. 151.
J. B. Jennings, Esq., for respondent.
Section 3491 Rev. Statutes of Utah, 1898, reads: Before property can be taken, it must appear that the use to which it is to be applied, is a use authorized by law." The trial court decided that the use for which appellant sought to condemn this land, is a use "unauthorized by law," and we maintain that the court was right in this finding.
The taking of this proposed "mill site" is the taking of private property for private purposes, and cannot be authorized, even by legislative act, and the fact that the use to which the land is intended to be put or the structure to be built thereon, will tend incidentally to the benefit of the public by affording additional accommodations for business, commerce or manufactures, is not sufficient to bring the case within the operation of the right of eminent domain, so long as the structure is to remain under private ownership and control and no right to its use or to direct its management is conferred upon the public. Matter of Eureka Basin Warehouse Mfg. Co., 96 N.Y. 49.
Appellant cannot condemn this land for "mill site," because such a purpose or use is not provided for by statute in express terms and the statute is construed strictly in favor of the land owner. The taking of private property against the will of the owner being in derogation of the property rights of the citizen, the authority to take it, conferred by law, must not be implied or inferred, but must be given in express language. The proposed use for which the land is taken must be clearly embraced within the legitimate object of the power conferred by the statute, and if there is a doubt as to the extent of the power, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the land owner. Schmidt v. Densmore, 42 Mo. 225; Ligare v. City of Chicago, 32 Amr. St. R. 189; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Chicago, 138 Ill. 453; Belcher S. R. Co. v. St. Louis G. E. Co., 82 Mo. 121.
Even in states where the statutes have conferred this power, many of the courts have declared it constitutional. Beckman v. S. & S. R. Co., 22 Amr. Dec. 699, extended note.
From the reading of the foregoing authorities, and many others on the same points, but one conclusion can be reached, and that is to the absolute certainty that there is no error in this record; that the judgment of the lower court is in all things correct, and should be affirmed by the appellate court, without any hesitancy."
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The complaint is as follows: "That on the 27th day of March, 1899, he (plaintiff) was the owner and in the possession of the S. E. 1/4 of Sec. 35 T. 23 S. R. 2 W., Salt Lake Meridian; that on said day defendant unlawfully and forcibly entered upon said land and made large cuts thereon for the purpose of constructing a ditch over the same, to the injury of plaintiff in the sum of $ 100.
The answer denies "that on the 27th of March, or at any other time he unlawfully or forcibly took down plaintiff's fence or any part thereof inclosing his land, or that he unlawfully or forcibly caused to be made large or any cuts over or through his land for the purpose of constructing a ditch thereon, except as hereinafter stated: And denies that plaintiff's land or premises were injured in the sum of $ 100, or any other amount whatsoever."
The defendant also sets up an alleged counter claim based upon allegations which are, in substance, as follows: That the defendant in pursuance of the statutes of Utah duly and regularly appropriated a large quantity of unappropriated water, and duly filed in the office of the county recorder of Sevier County, the required notice of said appropriation, and then and there posted the required notices of his intention to divert and appropriate said water, and within the time specified by law began the prosecution of the work of constructing the necessary canals, ditches and flumes for the purpose of conducting said water to the point at which it was intended to be used in generating electricity to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doelle v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., s. 87-2669
...of law. The Utah Supreme Court has held that a defendant in an action for trespass may not counterclaim for condemnation. Peterson v. Bean, 22 Utah 43, 61 P. 213 (1900). In Peterson, the plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendant's trespass. Id. 61 P. at 214. The defendant's c......
-
Workman Motor Co. v. Pacific Finance Corporation
...alleged by the defendant come more nearly within the rule announced in the cases of Smith v. Alford, 31 Utah 346, 88 P. 16; Peterson v. Bean, 22 Utah 43, 61 P. 213; and Beck v. Lee, 52 Utah 31, 172 P. The making and assigning to the defendant of the contract for the sale of other automobile......