200 S.W.2d 117 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1947
Reversing.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Shelby circuit court reversing and setting aside a judgment of the Shelby county court closing a section of a county road known as the Harrodsburg-Drennon road, located in the northern portion of Shelby county.
At the point in question, the road runs in a north and south direction and connects on the north with State Highway No. 43, which runs in an east and west direction, and on the south with a county road known as the Cropper-Cull road. From this intersection the Cropper-Cull road runs parallel with the tracks of the Louisville Nashville railroad to the town of Cropper, a distance of seven-tenths of a mile, where it intersects with State Highway No. 43. The section of the Harrodsburg-Drennon road between the Cropper-Cull road and State Highway No. 43 is six-tenths of a mile in length, and passes through the lands of the appellee, R.P. Flood, and R.D. Bellwood. R.P. Flood owns land on both sides of the southern part of *123
this section and, after passing through his land a distance of 510 feet, the road passes through the land of R.D. Bellwood a distance of 2,500 feet to State Highway No. 43. The portion of the road which passes through Bellwood's land has not been used since 1935, when State Highway No. 43 was constructed. It appears that R.D. Bellwood constructed fences and gates across the road on his land. On March 14, 1933, the fiscal court of Shelby county ordered this portion of the road closed and directed that proper notices be published, but no action was taken pursuant to the order. In September, 1945, a similar order was entered by the fiscal court, and proceedings were begun in the Shelby county court, pursuant to section
It is argued by appellee that as an abutting property *124
owner he has a property right in the Harrodsburg-Drennon road; that the closing of the road constitutes a taking of that property right; and that such a taking is in violation of sections 13 and 242 of our Constitution. Section 13 provides that no man's property shall be taken or applied to public use without just compensation being previously made to him, and section 242 provides that municipal and other corporations and individuals vested with the privilege of taking private property for public use shall make just compensation for property taken, injured or destroyed by them. It further provides that upon appeal from the preliminary assessment, the amount of the damages shall be determined by a jury according to the course of the common law. Appellee also contends that KRS
"It would seem to result therefore, if there were no other reason for it that he could not ask the reversal of an order discontinuing a road through his land. If he can have no right to have it established, he can have none to prevent its discontinuance. The public convenience must be consulted. And the common will, represented by the county court, must prevail, over individual advantages and wishes. The advantages which any one derives from a highway, are adventitious. The duration of their enjoyment, depends on the continuance, or discontinuance *125 of the road, and this depends, not on the will or interest of an individual; but on the common good, and public sentiment."
In Chenault v. Collins,
"It has with uniform consistency been held by this court that a private citizen has no vested right in the permanent continuance of a public highway for a discontinuation of which he might maintain an action either for damages or to enforce a perpetual maintenance of the highway."
The Shannon and Collins cases, supra, as well as Lexington
Ohio Railway Company v. Applegate, 8 Dana 289, 33 Am. Dec. 497, and Bradbury v. Walton,
"* * * the general weight of authority in requiring compensation to an owner of private property for a taking or damage under similar constitutional provisions is that the damage suffered must be to contiguous property and the direct and immediate consequence of the act complained of Recovery cannot be had for remote or contingent injury. Nor will compensation be required where a change in a road results merely in personal inconvenience or injury, such as to trade or business, by diverting traffic, or compels a more circuitous route of access."
We conclude that the county court did not abuse its *127 discretion in ordering the section of road in question discontinued.
It follows that the circuit court erred in setting aside the order of the county court, and the judgment is accordingly reversed.