State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Joe D. Esther, Inc., s. 10672

• Decision Date: 28 February 1979
• Docket Number: 10679,Nos. 10672,s. 10672
• Citation: 579 S.W.2d 155
• Parties: STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOE D. ESTHER, INC., Defendant-Respondent. STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOE D. ESTHER, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 155

579 S.W.2d 155

STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of

Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOE D. ESTHER, INC., Defendant-Respondent.

STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of

Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOE D. ESTHER, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 10672, 10679.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District.

Feb. 28, 1979.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1979.

Bruce A. Ring, Chief Counsel, Jefferson City, George M. Johnson, William T. Powers, Jr., Asst. Counsel, Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant-respondent.

David Donnelly, Donnelly, Baldwin & Wilhite, Lebanon, for defendant-respondent-appellant.

BILLINGS, Judge.

Condemnation proceeding by the State Highway Commission and counterclaim by defendant for a mandatory injunction. The counterclaim was first tried by the court and relief denied. Trial by jury of the exceptions of the parties resulted in an award of $10,000 damages to defendant for the taking of an access and two drainage easements. Both parties appealed, defendant contending the court should have granted the requested injunctive relief and plaintiff claiming the court erred in denying a proposed amendment to its condemnation petition. We affirm as to the counterclaim and reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages.

The condemnation petition was filed in 1972 in connection with the construction of Interstate Highway 44 in Laclede County. The petition sought to condemn the defendant's "rights of direct access to, from, and across Route I-44 or its right-of-way, from defendant('s) abutting land . . ." and two drainage easements on defendant's land.

Commissioners were appointed and their report fixed defendant's damages at $5,270. Both parties filed exceptions to the commissioners' report and thereafter defendant filed its counterclaim seeking to compel plaintiff to construct and maintain an outer roadway along the north side of its property.

At the bench trial of the counterclaim, the evidence was that Warren and Judy Dean were the former owners of lands which now lie both north and south of I-44. In 1955 old Highway 66 ran along the southern boundary of the Dean property and in that year plaintiff initiated proceedings to acquire right-of-way for a new two-lane highway which would be located north of the old highway and across the Deans' land. The new highway was to be used for westbound traffic on Route 66 and the old highway was to be used for eastbound traffic. ¹

In 1955 the Deans conveyed to plaintiff an easement for new Highway 66. The deed also conveyed the Deans' "abutters' rights of direct access between the highway, now known as U. S. Route 66, and Grantors' abutting land . . .; except that there is reserved and excepted to grantors, their heirs and assigns, the usual right of direct access (1) to any adjacent outer-roadway if, and while it may be maintained by proper authority in front of said land, and (2) along it to and from the nearest lane of the thruway or public highway." The deed also contained the following: "This conveyance is made upon the condition and understanding that the State will construct and maintain such an adjacent outer-roadway fronting on Grantors' land from Station 1400 k 55 to Station 1406 k 85."

The evidence was undisputed that after the 1955 Dean deed the plaintiff did construct and maintain an outer roadway between the new highway and the northern portion of the Dean land. A thruway or cross-over was constructed at the west end of the outer roadway which crossed the highway and permitted an entrance to the southern portion of the Dean land.

Defendant purchased the south portion of what we have referred to as the Dean land from other grantors in 1967. At that time this tract of land was bounded by new Highway 66 on the north and old Highway 66 on the south. Bear Creek runs east and west through this tract of land and the upland portion, that lying between the creek and the new highway, was more suitable for defendant's cattle operation. Until this condemnation suit, defendant had access to the upland from new Highway 66 by way of the entrance at the south end of the thruway or cross-over. This suit sought to acquire this access, together with the two drainage easements.

It was defendant's theory, under its counterclaim, that the Dean deed required the plaintiff to construct and maintain an outer roadway between I-44 and the north boundary of defendant's land so that it could continue to have access to the upland from the north. In denying equitable relief and dismissing the counterclaim, the court inter alia, found and determined that plaintiff had constructed and maintained an outer roadway pursuant to the terms of the Dean deed; that defendant's rights as successor in title from the Deans were subject to eminent domain proceedings by plaintiff; and that defendant had an adequate remedy by way of damages.

We agree with the action taken by the trial court in dismissing defendant's counterclaim. In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Hammel, 372 S.W.2d 852 (Mo.1963), the trial court dismissed the landowner's counterclaim which sought specific performance of an alleged agreement by the commission to construct an overpass and streets necessary for ingress and egress to the landowner's property. In affirming the lower court's ruling, our Supreme Court said at 853-854: "In Handlan-Buck Co. v. State Highway Commission, Mo., 315 S.W.2d 219, appellan...