Sweet v. Irrigation Canal Co.
| Citation | 198 Or. 166,256 P.2d 252 |
| Parties | SWEET et ux. v. IRRIGATION CANAL CO. |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1953 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Cochran & Eberhard, of La Grande, for the motion.
Charles R. Cater, of La Grande, contra.
Before BRAND *, C. J., and ROSSMAN, LUSK, LATOURETTE ** and WARNER, JJ.
The petition for rehearing presents nothing that we have not heretofore considered and discussed, except a contention that, to quote from the brief, 'The Court's opinion gives a road 80 feet wide without any proof of such a road being necessary or required.' This assertion is based on what, in our opinion, is an unwarranted assumption that the southerly boundary of the road is the northerly boundary of the Union Pacific right of way, and that assumption in turn derives from the description in the ineffectual proceedings to establish a road. For reasons which it is unnecessary to repeat we rejected the plaintiff's contention that the width of the road could be determined by reference to those proceedings. That being so, we are unable to see how they can have evidentiary value for any purpose. Assuming, however, that resort may be had to the proceedings for the purpose suggested by counsel, we will consider counsel's contention that the description in the petition fixes the southerly boundary of the road. The petition describes a proposed road as 'running along the north side of the right of way of the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company.' This, it is said, means that the road was to be contiguous with the north boundary of the right of way. But this is not necessarily so, and in this instance the construction suggested would be unreasonable.
The word 'along' is defined in Funk & Wagnall's Dictionary as 'At points extending through or over the length (of anything); by the side; near'. The meaning of the word must be determined from the context, and it does not necessarily imply contact. Watts v. City of Winfield, 101 Kan. 470, 168 P. 319. See, also, Williams v. Board of Com'rs of Routt County, 37 Colo. 55, 84 P. 1109; Pratt v. Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad Co., 42 Me. 579, 585; People ex rel. v. Astle, 337 Ill. 253, 256, 169 N.E. 185.
For a portion of its length opposite the plaintiffs' property the railroad right of way is 60 feet in width. It then widens out to 100 feet, and the north line becomes 20 feet closer to plaintiffs' land than is the case with the remainder of the right of way to the west. According to the testimony of the witness McLain, an engineer who prepared two of the maps in evidence, this additional 20 feet was 'bought after, in later years'. He did not state when it was bought, and there is nothing to indicate whether it was before or after the abortive proceedings were commenced. But, whatever may be the fact about that, it is unreasonable to suppose that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alderwoods (Or.), Inc.
...Burk, 200 Or. at 228, 265 P.2d 783 (same); Sweet et al. v. Irrigation Canal Co., 198 Or. 166, 190–91, 254 P.2d 700, reh'g den., 198 Or. 166, 256 P.2d 252 (1953) (abutting property owner has right of access that "is as much property as the soil within the boundaries of his lot"); Barrett, 11......
-
State v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc.
...that denied landowners access to a road in Sweet et al. v. Irrigation Canal Co., 198 Or. 166, 191, 254 P.2d 700, reh'g den., 198 Or. 166, 256 P.2d 252 (1953), constituted a taking of the owners' access rights because the ditch involved a use of the right of way of the road for a purpose oth......
-
State, By and Through State Highway Commission v. Burk
...179 Or. 666, 673, 174 P.2d 192. The rule is definitely settled in the recent case of Sweet v. Irrigation Canal Co., Or., 254 P.2d 700, 256 P.2d 252. See also Bohm v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 129 N.Y. 576, 29 N.E. 802, 14 L.R.A. 344; People v. Al. G. Smith Co., Limited, 86 Cal.App.2d 308, 1......
-
Iowa State Highway Commission v. Smith, 49186
...State ex rel. Gebelin v. Department of Highways, 200 La. 409, 8 So.2d 71; Sweet v. Irrigation Canal Co., 198 Or. 166, 254 P.2d 700, 717, 256 P.2d 252. See also Fowler v. City of Nelson, 213 Mo.App. 82, 246 S.W. 638. There is, however, authority for the view an abutting owner is entitled to ......