Ross v. State Highway Commission
| Decision Date | 09 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | 195 |
| Citation | 43 S.W.2d 75,184 Ark. 610 |
| Parties | ROSS v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Dexter Bush, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
McMillan & McMillan, for appellant.
Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Claude Duty, Assistant, for appellee.
Although this appeal comes to us from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to appellant's complaint, the parties differ as to the effect and purport of the allegations of the complaint. We have accepted the appellant's interpretation of its allegations, inasmuch as he may make its allegations more specific upon the remand which must be ordered; and if the complaint does not allege what he contends it does, an amendment to the complaint will clarify the issues which he discusses in his brief on this appeal.
As thus interpreted, the complaint contains the following allegations: Without any order of court authorizing the State Highway Commission to enter upon and appropriate and damage plaintiff's lands or assessing the damages thus occasioned, the State Highway Commission entered upon and damaged plaintiff's lands. This was done by constructing a road bed and by digging a ditch connecting with a creek which caused the water from the creek, in flood periods, to flow back upon plaintiff's lands. The road bed thus constructed was a part of the State's highway system. The road bed and ditch caused damage to the lands and to the crop growing thereon.
Thereafter, the road bed having been found insufficient for its intended purposes, an order of condemnation was obtained in the county court condemning the necessary right-of-way. These allegations state a cause of action against both the State Highway Commission and the county, although suit was brought against the State Highway Commission only.
It may be first said that the county had power and authority to condemn and pay for the right-of-way at its own expense, even though the road to be improved was a part of the State's highway system. It was so expressly decided in the case of England v. State Highway Commission, 177 Ark. 157, 6 S.W.2d 23. See also other cases there cited. In such a proceeding the county would be liable for any damage then or thereafter accruing through the exercise of this right of eminent domain. Independence County v. Lester, 173 Ark. 796, 293 S.W. 743.
But the complaint alleges an entry upon and damage to the lands by the State Highway Commission before the exercise of this right of eminent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee County, Ark. v. Holden
...until compensation is fixed and paid, or secured, as was done by the defendant in this case. The defendant cites Ross v. State Highway Commission, 184 Ark. 610, 43 S.W.2d 75, 76, and Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Means, Judge, 192 Ark. 628, 93 S.W.2d 314. We do not think these decisi......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Palmer
...land, and, by so doing, the county became liable for all damages for such taking, § 76-510. In the case of Ross v. State Highway Commission, 184 Ark. 610, 43 S.W.2d 75, 76, we 'It may be first said that the county had power and authority to condemn and pay for the right of way at its own ex......
-
Washa v. Prairie County
... ... 531] had condemned ... for the construction of a part of State highway No. 70 along ... a changed route. The county court disallowed the ... land from which a part had been taken. Ross v ... State Highway Commission, 184 Ark. 610, 43 S.W.2d ... 75; Ross v ... ...