Watts v. State Road Commission of W. Va.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | 8359. |
| Citation | 185 S.E. 570,117 W.Va. 398 |
| Parties | WATTS et al. v. STATE ROAD COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted April 14, 1936.
Syllabus by the Court.
An action in assumpsit may not be maintained against the state road commission.
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County.
Suit by Charles B. Watts and others against the State Road Commission of West Virginia. To review an adverse judgment, defendant brings error.
Reversed and dismissed.
Homer A. Holt, Atty. Gen., J. F. Bouchelle, Asst Atty. Gen., and Carter W. Staats, of Ripley, for plaintiff in error.
Oliver D. Kessel, of Ripley, for defendant in error.
This case originated as a suit in equity brought in the circuit court of Jackson county by Charles B. Watts and others against the state road commission. The purpose of the suit was to obtain specific performance on the part of the road commission of an agreement in writing dated the 18th day of January, 1934, and signed by Charles B. Watts and Ella Watts his wife, by which an option was granted to the state road commission within six months from the date of the writing to purchase a certain parcel of land to be used as a right of way for the sum of $800. The bill also prayed injunctive relief. It alleged that after the signing of the agreement and before the expiration of the time during which the option ran, the defendant entered upon the land of the plaintiffs in Jackson county and proceeded to locate the right of way. The bill proceeded upon the theory that this entry and location by the state road commission was to be treated as an acceptance under the terms of the option, and it sought to have the agreement on the part of the road commission specifically enforced by the recovery from it of the purchase price of $800. Upon demurrer to the bill of complaint, the cause was transferred to the law side of the court, and upon amendments to the bill it was treated as a declaration in trespass on the case. Upon demurrer to the declaration as a declaration in trespass on the case, an amended declaration in assumpsit was filed. The demurrer to the second amended declaration being overruled, the case proceeded to trial, and judgment against the state road commission for $800, with interest and costs.
There are several assignments of error, only one of which we think needs to be dealt with, and that but briefly.
The main point raised by the plaintiff in error is that the state road commission is an arm of the state and, as such, cannot be made a defendant either at law or in equity under the provisions of section 35 of article 6 of the Constitution.
The principle that the state road commission cannot be made a party defendant in an action of tort on account of the inhibition contained in section 35 of article 6 of the Constitution is established by the case of Mahone v State Road Commission, 99 W.Va. 397, 129 S.E. 320 which, in turn, follows several previous West Virginia decisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial