Town of Avondale v. McFarland

Decision Date20 June 1893
Citation101 Ala. 381,13 So. 504
PartiesTOWN OF AVONDALE v. MCFARLAND ET AL.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James B. Head, Judge.

Action by J. H. McFarland and others against the town of Avondale to recover for damages to plaintiffs' property by changing the grade of a street. Plaintiffs had judgment, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

M. A Mason, for appellant.

W. F Dickinson, for appellees.

STONE C.J.

The transcript before us shows without material conflict, as we think, the following state of facts: The town of Avondale was laid off into lots, with places for streets marked off. One of the streets passed over low, wet ground; so low and wet that to fit it for travel as a highway, and render it convenient and safe for use as a street, it was necessary to fill in and raise its grade. Adjoining this unimproved street was a lot which corresponded in grade with the street in its natural, unimproved stage. Plaintiffs below (appellees here) purchased this lot, and erected upon it a dwelling, which was occupied by one or more of them. After this the town authorities filled in and raised the grade of the street, so as to make it safe and convenient as a highway. The effect of thus raising the grade of the street was to check the natural flow of water from plaintiffs' lot, and cause it to stand upon it six or eight inches in depth. It is not claimed that this work was done unskillfully or carelessly, but it is complained that no escape or outlet was provided by which the water could flow off. On the other hand, the town authorities made proof tending to show that it was not practicable to provide an escape or outlet for the water, except across other lots that were private property. We propose to consider only a single question, namely, whether in laying off lots and streets, dedicating the latter and selling the former, it is part and parcel of the implications of the contract of sale that the corporate authorities shall have the right and power to so change and improve the streets as to make them safe and convenient highways for the public, and this without being required to make compensation to the lot owner for the injury done his property.

Section 7, art. 14, of the constitution of 1875 ordains that "municipal and other corporations, and individuals vested with the privilege of taking private property for public use, shall make just compensation for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • City of Huntsville v. Goodenrath
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 1915
    ... ... increased value; for, says the Constitution, § 223: ... "No city, town, or other municipality shall make any ... assessment for the cost of sidewalks or street paving, ... 348, 60 ... So. 447; Decatur v. Brock, 170 Ala. 149, 54 So. 209; ... Harton v. Avondale, 147 Ala. 458, 41 So. 934; ... Birmingham v. Wagenseler, 168 Ala. 344, 53 So. 289 ... City Council of Montgomery v ... Maddox, 89 Ala. 181, 7 So. 433; Avondale v ... McFarland, 101 Ala. 381, 13 So. 504; Arnut v ... Cullman, 132 Ala. 551, 31 So. 478, 90 Am.St.Rep. 922; ... ...
  • Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 1, 1930
    ... ... of surface water from the street and diverts it onto ... plaintiff's property, and in Avondale v ... McFarland, 101 Ala. 381, 13 So. 504, in view of ... constitutional provisions, it was ... ...
  • City of Birmingham v. Graves
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1917
    ... ... McEachin v. City of Tuscaloosa, supra; Town of New ... Decatur v. Scharfenberg, 147 Ala. 367, 41 So. 1025, 119 ... Am.St.Rep. 81. In the ... diminution in value produced thereby." ... In ... Town of Avondale v. McFarland, 101 Ala. 381, 13 So ... 504, the municipality was held liable under the ... ...
  • City of Decatur v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1948
    ...of Montgomery v. Townsend, 80 Ala. 489, 2 So. 155, 60 Am.Rep. 112; Id., 84 Ala. 478, 4 So. 780) were overruled. The rule of the McFarland case, supra, was again reaffirmed followed in McEachin v. City of Tuscaloosa, 164 Ala. 263, 267, 51 So. 153, where damages were awarded for removing a sh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT