Ridgway v. City of Osceola
Decision Date | 21 October 1908 |
Citation | 117 N.W. 974,139 Iowa 590 |
Parties | RIDGWAY v. CITY OF OSCEOLA. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Clarke County; H. K. Evans, Judge.
Action to recover damages for the vacation of a street and alley upon which plaintiff's property abutted. Defendant demurred to the petition, and its demurrer was sustained. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.O. M. Slaymaker, for appellant.
Temple & Temple, for appellee.
As the case was decided upon a demurrer to the petition, we must go to that petition for the facts. It is recited therein that plaintiff is the owner of parts of certain lots in the defendant city which were situated immediately south of the right of way of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad as it passed through the city. Plaintiff's property is irregular in shape because the railway right of way does not conform to the other lines and boundaries of the property. The lots are 12 or 15 feet in width on the west and 170 feet wide on the east. They have a frontage of 214 feet on the south, and the north line is parallel with the railway right of way. There are two houses on plaintiff's lots, and prior to the vacation complained of there were streets on the west and south of his property and an alley on the east. Prior to the vacation, plaintiff had erected a wood and coal house and other buildings upon her lots; the alley affording access thereto.
That we may have the exact question for consideration before us, we now quote the following from the petition: In an amendment to the petition, it was alleged:
The demurrer was upon the ground that the law afforded no relief for the proper and regular vacation of streets and alleys by the council of a city. The trial court was of that opinion, and the appeal challenges the ruling on the demurrer. It is conceded that under section 751 of the Code cities and towns have power to narrow or vacate streets, alleys, or public grounds; but it is contended that they may not do so when it interferes with and damages abutting property. It may not be out of place to say that the mere fact that the city conveyed the property to the railway for private or semipublic purposes is immaterial to our present inquiry. Under the rule established by this court, the city council may convey vacated streets and alleys to private individuals. Dempsey v. Burlington, 66 Iowa, 687, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hubbell v. City of Des Moines
...the vacation of a public highway. It cites with approval Borghart v. Cedar Rapids, supra, and Long v. Wilson, supra. Ridgway v. City of Osceola, 139 Iowa, 590, 117 N. W. 974, relied on by the plaintiff, was an action to recover damages claimed to have been caused by the vacation of a street......
-
Hubbell v. City of Des Moines
...of property within the constitutional inhibition, and cannot be taken away without compensation. It was, however, said in Ridgway v. City of Osceola, supra, that, in so as the damages are not different from those of the general public, no damages may be recovered from the city on account of......
-
Stom v. City of Council Bluffs
...267, 268, 93 N.W. 282, 283 (1903); Borghart v. Cedar Rapids, 126 Iowa 313, 316, 101 N.W. 1120, 1121 (1905); Ridgway v. City of Osceola, 139 Iowa 590, 594, 117 N.W. 974, 975 (1908); Hubbell v. City of Des Moines, 173 Iowa 55, 63, 154 N.W. 337, 340 (1915); Nalon v. City of Sioux City, 216 Iow......
- Ridgway v. City of Osceola