34

general public,31 as where his right of access is interfered with,32 or where he is compelled by reason thereof to take a more circuitous route in going to or from his property;33 and this is true, although the highway is not his sole means of ingress or egress, although his land does not abut on the highway at the exact point of the obstruction,35 or even where his land does not actually abut on the highway, if it is near enough to be materially affected by the obstruction.36 A landowner is entitled to an injunction to prevent any excavation on neighboring land, which will cause subsidence or destruction of the highway in front of his premises, or take away the lateral support of the soil to which he is entitled.38 Inasmuch as any unlawful obstruction or interference with a highway is,

accrued up to the time of the commencement of
the action.23 Incidental damages in common with
the rest of the public are not the subject of re-
covery.24 The mere fact of interference with his
right of access will entitle an abutting owner to at
least nominal damages.25 Punitive damages may be
recovered,26 where the circumstances are such as to
justify the allowance of such damages.27 Dam-
ages arising from both a temporary and a perma-
nent nuisance may be recovered in the same action.28
[267] c. Injunction.20 Injunction may
maintained by the owner of the fee in a proper
case to restrain a wrongful use of the highway.30
Thus an abutting owner is entitled to an injunction,
where an obstruction or excavation results in special
injury to him, distinct from that suffered by the
23. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Eberle, | Misc. 574, 57 NYS 605.
110 Ind. 542, 11 NE 467, 59 AmR 225.

24. Newton v. New York, etc., R. Co., 72 Conn. 420, 44 A 813; Jacksonville, etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 34 Fla. 346, 16 S 282, 26 LRA 410; Dantzer v. Indianapolis Union R. Co., 141 Ind. 604, 39 NE 223, 50 AmSR 343, 34 LRA 769; Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Eberle, 110 Ind. 542, 11 NE 467, 59 AmR 225.

be

37

N. C.-Wheeler v. Charlotte Cons.
Constr. Co., 170 N. C. 427, 87 SE 221.
Pa.-Hopkins v. Catasauqua Mfg.
Co.. 180 Pa. 199, 36 A 735.
Vt.-Elliott v. Jenkins, 69 Vt. 134,
37 A 272.

Eng.-Fielden v. Cox, 22 T. L. R.

411.

B. C.-Rorison v. Kolosoff, 15 B. C. 26.

[a] It must appear that the injuries will be reasonably certain to occur before the court should interfere with or obstruct highway commissioners in improving the public roads according to their judgment. Barnard V. Nokomis Highway Comrs., 172 Ill. 391, 50 NE 120 [aff 71 Ill. A. 187].

[a] Illustrations.-(1) For merely incidental damages such as result from the careful construction and prudent operation of a railroad on the land of another, even though it is in a public street, the adjacent proprietor cannot recover. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Noftsger, 148 Ind. 101, 47 NE 332. (2) So an obstruction or discontinuance of the highway at an- [b] Temporary, and not unreaother place, although it may in- sonable use of the roadway in front directly affect the value of his prop-of plaintiff's premises, by teams and erty by requiring a longer and more trucks standing in line to unload in circuitous route to reach it, is not an turn on defendant's adjoining preminjury or tort for which the land-ises, will not be enjoined. Manley v. owner can recover damages. New-Leggett, 62 Hun 562, 17 NYS 68. ton V. New York, etc., R. Co., 72 [c] Technical trespass. -An inConn. 420, 44 A 813; Jacksonville, juretion to restrain trespasses will etc., R. Co. v. Thompson, 34 Fla. 346, be refused where such trespasses 16 S 282, 26 LRA 410. were merely technical and no property rights were threatened or infringed. Fielden v. Cox, 22 T. L. R. 411.

25. Bannon v. Murphy, 38 SW 889, 18 KyL 989.

26. Dickensheet v. Chouteau Min. Co., 200 Mo. A. 150, 202 SW 624. 27. See Damages §§ 268–298. 28.

[d] The unauthorized construction of a street railway may be enWallace v. Kansas City, etc., joined since the trespass would conR. Co., 47 Mo. A. 491. stitute a continuing injury, for which 29. Injunctions generally see In- there would be no adequate remedy junctions [22 Cyc 724]. at law. Canastota Knife Co. v. New30. Conn.-Canastota Knife Co. v.ington Tramway Co., 69 Conn. 146, Newington Tramway Co., 69 Conn. 36 A 1107. 146, 36 A 1107.

Ill.-Moore V. Gar Creek Drain.
Dist., 266 Ill. 399, 107 NE 642.
Ind. Strunk v. Pritchett, 27 Ind.
A. 582, 61 NE 973.

Iowa.-Pillings v. Pottawattamie
County, 188 Iowa 567. 176 NW 314.
Kan. Hayden v. Stewart, 71 Kan.
11, 80 P 43.

[e] The erection of a telephone pole in front of a door or window may be enjoined. Russ v. Pennsylvania Tel. Co., 3 Pa. Dist. 654, 15 Pa. Co. 226.

[f] One who has disposed of his interest in land is not a proper party to restrain blocking of highway, denying access to it. Babcock v. Heenan, 193 Mich. 229, 159 NW 494. 31. Kan.--Ruthstrom v. Peterson,

La.-Bradley v. Pharr, 45 La. Ann. 426, 12 S 618, 19 LRA 647. Mass.-Owen v. Field, 102 Mass. 72 Kan. 679, 83 P 825.

90.

Mo.-Dubach v. Hannibal, etc., R.
Co., 89 Mo. 483, 1 SW 86.

N. J.-H. B. Anthony Shoe Co. v.
West Jersey R. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 607,
42 A 279; Pruden v. Morris, etc., R.
Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 386; Bechtel v. Car-
slake, 11 N. J. Eq. 500.

N. Y.-Ackerman v. True, 175 N.
Y. 353. 67 NE 629, 13 NYAnnCas 206
[rev 71 App. Div. 143, 75 NYS 695].
Oh.-Madden v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 21 Oh. Cir. Ct. 73, 11 Oh. Cir.
Dec. 571.

N. Y.-Ackerman v. True, 175 N. Y. 353, 67 NE 629, 13 NYAnnCas 206 [rev 71 App. Div. 143, 75 NYS 695]; Coatsworth v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 156 N. Y. 451, 51 NE 301 [aff 24 App. Div. 273, 48 NYS 511]; In re Buffalo, 131 N. Y. 293, 30 NE 233, 27 AmSR 592, 15 LRA 413; Lynch v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 129 N. Y. 274, 29 NE 315, 26 AmSR 523, 15 LRA 287; Galway v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 132, 28 NE 479, 13 LRA 788; Shepard v. Manhattan R. Co., 117 N. Y. 442, 23 NE 30; Henderson v. New York Cent. R. Co.. 78 N. Y. 423; Murdock v. Prospect Park, etc., R. Co., 73 N. Y. 579; Syracuse Solar Salt Co. v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 67 Hun 153, 22 NYS 321; Post v. Suffolk Light, etc., Co., 77 Misc. 369, 136 [a] Elevated approach to railroad NYS 401; Finegan v. Eckerson, 26 crossing.-Where the construction by

Pa. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v.
Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 6 Pa. Dist.

269.

a street railway, on one side of the street, of an elevated approach to a crossing of a steam railroad, will result in no special injury to property owners on the other side, they have no standing to enjoin its construction. Cobb v. Warren St. R. Co., 218 Pa. 366, 67 A 654.

32. U. S.-American Steel, etc.. Co. V. Wire Drawers', etc., Unions Nos. 1 and 3, 90 Fed. 608.

Ind. Martin V. Marks, 154 Ind. 549, 57 NE 249; Strunk v. Pritchett, 27 Ind. A. 582, 61 NE 973.

Iowa.-Pillings V. Pottawattamie County, 188 Iowa 567, 176 NW 314. Kan.-Ruthstrom v. Peterson, 72 Kan. 679, 83 P 825.

N. J.-H. B. Anthony Shoe Co. v. West Jersey R. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 607, 42 A 279.

N. Y.-Eldert v. Long Island Electric R. Co., 28 App. Div. 451, 51 NYS 186 [aff 165 N. Y. 651 mem, 59 NE 1122 mem]; Finegan v. Eckerson, 26 Misc. 574, 57 NYS 605.

487.

95.

Pa.--Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 6 Pa. Dist. R. I.-Gorton v. Tiffany, 14 R. I. Ont.--Taylor v. Gage, 30 Ont. L. 75, 5 OntWN, 489, 16 DomLR 686. [a] An abutting owner who has erected costly buildings on his land for a particular manufacturing purpose is not bound to wait until his buildings are rendered valueless by the blocking up of the highway which gives him the only means of access thereto, but may proceed at once by injunction. Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90.

[b] An abutting owner who does not own the ultimate fee in the soil (1) has nevertheless his rights of ingress and egress, and if he sustains private or particular injury not in common with the annoyance to the public, may have his redress. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 6 Pa. Dist. 487. (2) But he cannot maintain a suit to restrain a nuisance which injures him only in a right enjoyed by him as one of the public. H. B. Anthery Shoe Co. v. West Jersey R. Co.. 57 N. J. Eq. 607, 42 A 279; Cobb v. Warren St. R. Co., 218 Pa. 366, 67 A 651.

33. Sloss-Sheffield Steel, etc., Co. v. Johnson, (Ala.) 41 S 907; Bryan v. Petty, 162 Iowa 62, 143 NW 987: Young v. Rothrock, 121 Iowa 588. 96 NW 1105; Hill v. Hoffman, (Tenn. Ch. A.) 58 SW 929.

34. Dyche V. Weichselbaum, Kan. A. 360, 58 P 126.

9

35. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Schaufler, 189 Ala. 58. 66 S 502; Hill v. Hoffman, (Tenn. Ch.) 58 SW 929. 36. Madden V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 21 Oh. Cir. Ct. 73, 11 Oh. Cir. Dec. 571.

Tenn. Memphis St. R. Co. V. Rapid Transit Co., 133 Tenn, 99, 179 SW 635, LRA1916B 1143, Ann Cas 1917C 1045. 37. Finegan v. Eckerson, 32 App. Wis.-Pettibone V. Hamilton, 40 Div. 233, 52 NYS 993. Wis. 402. 38. Finegan v. Eckerson, 32 App. Div. 233, 52 NYS 993.

Right to lateral support see supra

HIGHWAYS

per se, a nuisance, negligence need not be shown.39 It has been held that persons owning separate tracts of land abutting on the highway have no joint right of action to enjoin an obstruction, but must proceed separately.40 But there is authority to the contrary. 41

Waiver.

[29 C. J.] 553

highway, by merely remaining silent while an ad-
joining owner is erecting an encroachment on the
highway, is not deprived of his right to a manda-
tory injunction to remove the encroachment by
reason of laches or acquiescence, where such silence
has not continued for such a length of time as
will authorize the presumption of a grant.12

An owner of land abutting on a public
V. HIGHWAY DISTRICTS, BOARDS, AND OFFICERS
[BY JUAN D. MIRANDA]

A. Districts-1.

44

political, or civil subdivisions of the state, created by or under general laws to aid in the administration of that governmental function which concerns highdistricts,50 irrigation districts,51 levee districts, 62 ways, being analogous, in this respect, to drainage and school districts.53

49

Corporate capacity. Highway or road districts,
considered as political entities,54 like counties,55
school districts,56 and the like,57 generally have been
held to be quasi public corporations;58 distinguished
on the one hand from private corporations
on the other hand from municipal corporations.60

59

and

[268] and Status. Definition, Nature, Like the term "school district," 43 and other terms applied to districts of a similar nature,1 "highway district" or "road district" may be employed sometimes merely to designate the geographical area embraced within the district,45 for taxation 46 or other administrative purposes;47 but more frequently the term is employed as referring to a board, commission, or other instrumentality created to function within the territorial limits of a designated area;48 and when so used, highway districts or road districts may be defined as involuntary, § 263 text and note 68. erally Adjoining Landowners §§ 29-75. Ward v. State, (Ala.) 39 S 923. See also gen-seer in the discharge of his duties. | them by common 39. Finegan v. Eckerson, 26 Misc. 574, 57 NYS 605. 46. 40. Cal.-Anaheim Sugar Co. law by which consent and the Eads v. Kumley, 67 Ind. A. Orange County, 183 P 809. they were v. State v. Heffernan, 243 Mo. 442, 148 361, created. 119 NE 219; Morris, Miss.-De Co. v. Prudden, 20 N. J. Eq. 530. etc., SW 90. R. 120 Miss. 334, 82 S 257; Prather_v. Soto County_v. Dean, 41. 50. Pettibone v. Hamilton, 40 Wis. Lauderdale See Googe, 108 Miss. 670, 67 S 156. Drains 12 M Embree v. Kansas City, etc., Bouleet seq; See vard Road Dist., 257 Mo. 593, 166 County Fed. 593, 143 CCA 615. V. Kittel, 229 SW 282. 314; Thompson v. Fellows, 21 N. H. N. H.-Palmer v. Carroll, 24 N. H. 425. Vt.-Newbury v. Tenney, 2 Aik. 295. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 Wash.-Spokane, etc., R. Co. P 113. 47. Cal-Anaheim Santa Barbara County, 160 Cal. 349, Orange County, 183 P 809; Potter v. Sugar Co. V. 116 P 1101.

r

402. 42.

Ackerman v. True, 175 N. Y. 353, 67 NE 629, 13 NYAnnCas 206 [rev 71 App. Div. 143, 75 NYS 695]. 43. See Schools and School Districts [35 Cyc 813]. 44.

45.

tel,

Fed.

V.

See District 18 C. J. p 1292. See Lauderdale County v. Kit229 593, 143 (Mississippi); Anaheim Sugar Co. v. CCA 615 Orange County, (Cal.) 183 Potter v. Santa Barbara County, 160 P 809; Cal. 349, 116 P 1101; San Bernardino County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 137 Cal. 659, 70 P 782; Sebrell v. Fall Creek Tp., 27 Ind. Myers, 63 Nebr. 107, 86; Denver Custer County Bank v. Custer County, 88 NW 191; 18 S. D. 274, 280, 100 NW 424. [a] Part of other corporate entity. A road district may be a part of a township or other quasi corporate entity, although not self a separate entity. in itFall Creek Tp.. 27 Ind. 86. Sebreil v. [b] In California (1) a road district is not a political entity; nor has it any corporate existence, de jure or de facto, Anaheim or by implication. Sugar Co. County, 183 V. Orange P neither sue nor be sued. 809. (2) It can are entirely managed by county ofIts affairs ficers. San Bernardino County Southern Pac. R. Co., 137 Cal. 659, 70. P 782.

but

mere thereof

v.

156. 38 P 332.
Colo.-Peo. v. Carver, 5 Colo. A.

22 NE 128; Sebrell v. Fall Creek Tp.,
Ill. Keech v. Peo., 22 Ill. 478.
Ind.-Lyon v. Kee, 120 Ind. 150,
27 Ind. 86.
County, 47 Iowa 452.
Iowa. Marks V. Woodbury
Miss.-Prather v. Googe, 108 Miss.
670, 67 S 156. See Lauderdale County
v. Kittel, 229 Fed. 593, 143 CCA 615.
107, 88 NW 191; Dixon County v.
Nebr.-Denver v. Myers, 63 Nebr.
Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 Nebr. (Unoff.)
240. 95
Lancaster County, 65 Fed. 188, 12
NW 340. See Madden
CCA 566.

[35 Cyc 813].
See Schools and School Dis-
See Drains § 12 et
[25 Cyc 194];
seq;
Waters [40

Cyc 774, 817].
57.
Levees

58. Ida. Shoshone Highway Dist. V. Anderson, 22 Ida. 109, 125 P 219. La. Farmer v. Myles, 106 La. 333, 341, 30 S 858.

V.

442, 148 SW 90.
Mo.-State v. Heffernan, 243 Mo.
Nebr. Madden
Lancaster
County, 65 Fed. 188, 12 CCA 566, 569
(recognizing rule).
296, 68 CCA 50.
Oh.-Rees V. Olmsted, 135 Fed.
Road Dist. No. 5, (Civ. A.) 199 SW
Tex.-Tyree
644.
V. Navarro County

Dillon Mun, Corp. § 25 (10a).
powers
"Considered with respect to the
limited number of their corporate
istence, and
[road districts]
low in the grade of corporate ex-
rank
v. Myles, supra.
have been frequently
termed quasi corporations." Farmer
see infra § 278.
Nature of board or commission

Suits by and against officers see
infra §§ 306, 307.

59.

N. J.-Morgan v. Monmouth Plank Road Co., 26 N. J. L. 99. 48. Farmer v. Myles, 106 La. 333, [c] In Mississippi "road districts 30 S 858; and cases infra note 49. are not separable corporate entities Anderson, 22 Ida. 109, 125 49. from the counties. Shoshone Highway Dist. graphical subdivisions geo- Farmer administrative P 219; v. Myles, 106 La. 333, 30 30 S 858; Dillon Mun. Corp. § 25 for S 858; Lamar v. Bolivar Spec. Road (10a). Farmer v. Myles, 106 La. 333, dale County v. Kittel, 229 Fed. 593, v. Kansas City, etc., Boulevard Road Anderson, 22 Ida. 109, 125 P 219; purposes.' Lauder- Dist., 600, 143 CCA 615. (Mo.) 201 SW 890; Embree [d] In Nebraska (1) a road dis- State v. Heffernan, 243 Mo. 442, 148 lice Jury, 146 La. 322, 83 S 587; 60. Dist., Shoshone Highway trict is not a political entity. Mo. 593, 166 Dist. V. SW 282; Joyce Co. v. Tangipahoa Parish Pover v. Myers, 63 Nebr. 107, 88 NW Den- SW 90; Dillon Mun. Corp. § 25 (10a). Farmer v. Myles, 106 La. 333, 30 S 191. (2) It is not Denver v. Myers, supra. a corporation. bodies politic; created by laws of the 68 CCA 50 (Ohio). [a] "These corporations not a municipal corporation. (3) It is state for the purpose of administer-Lancaster County, 65 Fed. 188, 12 are 858; Rees v. Olmsted, 135 Fed. 296, County v. Chicago, Dixon ing the [highway] affairs of the inSee Madden v. Nebr. (Unoff.) 240, 95 NW 340. etc.. R. Co., 1 corporated territory." Harris v. Wil-also Municipal Corporations [28 Cyc It has no legal existence as a politi- Mo. 664, 689, 149 SW 603. CCA (4) liam R. Compton Bond, etc., Co., 244 128. 129]; Dillon Mun. Corp. § 25 (recognizing rule). cal subdivision, in the sense that it See may own or control [b] Political manage the corporate affairs relat- Road Dist., (Mo.) 201 SW 890. property, subdivision (10a). ing to the establishment and imcounty. -Lamar of V. Bolivar Spec. proper [a] Municipal corporations provement of public highways within accept (1) [c] In Missouri such a district is own charters from its boundaries, through its officers or nor state to govern and to manage their the an organized body, not of citizens, caster County, 65 Fed. 188, 12 CCA local affairs. chosen for Denver v. Myers, supra. Madden v. Lanpurpose. erally, but of landholders, combined corporations, such as cities or towns of property holders gen- 566, 569 (Nebraska). [e] "Road precinct" may be em- value of their holdings, and willing ing statutes, are invested with more for the purpose of increasing the acting under charters or incorporat(2) Municipal ployed as designating the particular to pay the cost, or such portion of powers and endowed with more funcroad apportioned to a road over- the cost, as may be imposed uron tions and a larger measure of cor

agents

that

or

even

566

However, sometimes these districts have been loosely
referred to, and classified as, bodies corporate 61
with the usual powers of corporations for public
purposes,62
or as public corporations.63

64

[269] 2. Power to Create. Under its general powers over highways 65 and its power, in the absence of state or federal constitutional limitation, to create such corporations as it deems necessary or expedient in the public interest,66 the legislature may create and establish highway or road districts 67 whether the districts so created are po

porate life. Dillon Mun. Corp. § 25 (10a); Wheeling Tract. Co. v. Belmont County, 248 Fed. 205, 160 CCA 283; Farmer v. Myles, 106 La. 333, 30 S 858.

Miss.-De Soto County v. Dean, Wash. 259, 55 P 52.
120 Miss. 334, 82 S 257; Prather v.
Googe, 108 Miss. 670, 67 S 156.

Mo.-State v. Colbert, 273 Mo. 198,
201 SW 52; Harris v. William R.
[b] Road districts (1) are in- Compton Bond, etc., Co., 244 Mo.
voluntarily invested with corporate 664, 149 SW 603; State V. Heffer-
capacity and certain powers to be nan, 243 Mo. 442, 148 SW 90; Cass
exercised, as agents of the state. County Raymore Special Road Dist.
Madden v. Lancaster County, 65 Fed. v. Huber, 212 Mo. 551, 111 SW 472;
188, 12 CCA 566, 569. (2) A high- State v. Gordon, 197 Mo. 55, 94 SW
way district is not a municipality 987; Elting v. Hickman, 172 Mo.
such as a county, city, town, or vil-237, 72 SW 700.
lage, but is an entirely different kind N. H.-Kimball v. Russell, 56 N.
of municipality created for a spe- H. 488; Palmer v. Carroll, 24 N. H.
cific
Shoshone
purpose.
Highway 314; Thompson v. Fellows, 21 N. H.
Dist. v. Anderson, 22 Ida. 109, 125 425.
P 219; Hettinger v. Good Road Dist. N. J.-Morgan v. Monmouth Plank
No. 1, 19 Ida. 313, 113 P 721.
Read Co., 26 N. J. L. 99.
61. State v. Heffernan, 243 Mo. N. Y.-Shapter v. Carroll, 18 App.
442,148 SW 90; Horn v. Matagorda | Div. 390, 46 NYS 202.
County, (Tex. Commn. A.) 213 SW
934.

62. State v. Heffernan, 243 Mo. 442, 148 SW 90.

etc..
593,

Pa.-Pitt Tp. Road Case, 8 Watts & S. 74.

Vt.-Newbury V. Tenney, 2 Aik.

295.

63. Embree v. Kansas City, Wash. Spokane, etc.. R. Co. V. Boulevard Road Dist., 257 Mo. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 166 SW 282. P 113; Robertson v. King County, 64. Power to create board or com- 20 Wash. 259. 55 P 52. mission see infra § 279.

Barbara County. 160 Cal. 349, 355,
116 P 1101.

[a] The purpose of creating road
district is to create good roads and
improve highways. Willis v. Osceola
County Special Road, etc.. Dist., 73
Fla. 446, 74 S 495; Road Dist. No. 2
v. Washington County, 27 Ida. 732,
152 P 183.

"The formation of this and sim65. See supra § 31. ilar districts is a function pertain66. See Constitutional Law § 805; ing purely to the legislative branch Counties § 4 et seq; Municipal Cor-of the government." Potter v. Santa porations [28 Cyc 132 et seq). 67. Ark. - Payne V. Howard County Road Impr. Dist. No. 1, 232 SW 943; Sikes v. Douglas, 227 SW 988; White v. Arkansas, etc.. Highway Dist.. 227 SW 261; Self v. Greene County Road Impr. Dist. No. 1, 223 SW 402; Pharr v. Knox, 223 SW 400; Bradley County Road Impr. Dist. Nos. 1 & 2 v. Jarratt, 144 Ark. 260, 222 SW 14; Conlee v. Miller, 144 Ark. 56, 221 SW 465; VanHook v. Wallace, 142 Ark. 203, 220 SW 37: Watson v. Boydstun, 141 Ark. 184, 216 SW 721; Bush v. Delta Road Impr. Dist., 141 Ark. 247, 216 SW 690; Faucette v. Patterson, 140 Ark. 628, 216 SW 300: Cox v. Lenoke County Road Impr. Dist. No 8, 118 Ark. 119, 176 SW 676; Polk v. Booker, 112 Ark. 101, 165 SW 262; Jones v. Oldham, 109 Ark. 24, 158 SW 1075; Pulaski County Impr. Road Dist. No. 2 v. Winkler, 102 Ark. 553. 145 SW 209.

Cal.-Thomas V. Pridham, 171 Cal. 98, 153 P 933; Potter v. Santa Barbara County, 160 Cal. 349, 116 P 1101; Miller v. Kern County, 137 Cal. 516, 70 P 549; Wristlen. v. Donlan, 79 Cal. 472, 21 P 868; Tehama County v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57, 8 P 673. Colo.-Peo. v. Carver, 5 Colo. A. 156, 38 P 332.

Fla.-Charlotte Harbor, etc., R. Co. v. Welles, 78 Fla. 227, 82 S 770; Willis v. Osceola County Special Road, etc.. Dist., 73 Fla. 446, 74 S 495.

68. See cases supra note 67; infra note 69. See also supra § 268.

See Constitutional Law § 356 text and note 98, § 359 text and note 60.

70. See Spokane, etc., R. Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 P 113.

71. McKee v. English, (Ark.) 228 SW 43; Swepston v. Avery, 118 Ark. 294, 177 SW 424; Cox V. Lenoke County Road Impr. Dist. No. 8, 118 Ark. 119, 176 SW 676; Heinemann v. Sweatt, 130 Ark. 70, 196 SW 931; Road Impr. Dist. No. 1 v. Glover, 89 Ark. 513, 117 SW 544; Thompson v. Rearick, 33 Okl. P 283. 124 951. See also Constitutional Law §§ 168 et seq, 234 et seq; Statutes [36 Cyc 1008, 1041]. [a] Illustration. Counties cannot be organized into road districts where the exclusive jurisdiction of roads is vested by the constitution in county courts. Road Impr. Dist. No. 1 v. Glover, 89 Ark. 513, 117 SW 544.

72 Ark. McKee v. English, 228 SW 43; Sparks v. Halloway, (Ark.) 227 SW 981; McCord V. Welch, (Ark.) 227 SW 765; White V. Arkansas, etc., Highway Dist., (Ark.) 227 SW 261; Tatum v. Wallis, (Ark.) 225 SW 636; Phillips V. Tyronza, etc., Road Impr. Dist., (Ark.) 224 SW 981; Self v. Greene Road Impr. County Dist. No. 1. (Ark.) 223 SW 402; Nettles v. Green County Hazelwood Road Impr. Dist. No. 2, 144 Ark. 632, 223 SW 397; Thompson v. Trice, (Ark.) 223 SW 367; Conlee v. Miller, 144 Ark. 56, 221 SW 465; Gibson v. Spikes, 143 Ark. 270, 220 SW 56; Van Hook v. Wallace, 143 Ark. 203, 220 SW 37; Dickinson v. Reeder, 142 Ark. 228, 220 SW 32; Stanfield v. Cleveland County Road Impr. Dist., 142 Ark. 439. 218 SW 753; Johns v. Bradley County Road Impr. Dist., 142 Ark. 73, 218 SW 389; Easley v. Patterson, 142 Ark. 52, 218 SW 381; Road Impr. Dist. v. Hocott, 217 SW 268; Bush v. Delta Road Impr. Dist., 141 Ark. 247, 216 SW 690; Hill v. Echols, 140 Ark. 474, 215 SW 882; Harrison v. Abington, 140 Ark. 115, 215 SW 255; Vietz v. Hazen Lagrue, etc., Road Impr. Dist., 139 Ark. 567, 214 SW 50; Van Dyke v. Mack, 139 Ark. 524, 214 SW 23; Summers v. Conway, etc., Road Dist., 139 Ark. 277, 213 SW 775; Reitzammer v. Desha Impr. La. Joyce Co. v. Tangipahoa Par-Dist. No. 2, 139 Ark. 168, 213 SW ish Police Jury, 146 La. 322, 83 S 587. See Lancaster v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury, 254 Fed. 179.

69. Ark.-Self v. Greene County
Road Impr. Dist. No. 1, 223 SW 402;
Nall v. Kelly, 120 Ark. 277, 179 SW
486.

Cal-Potter V. Santa Barbara
County, 160 Cal. 349, 116 P 1101;
Miller v. Kern County, 137 Cal. 516,
70 P 549; Wristlen v. Donlan, 79
Cal. 472, 21 P 868.

Colo.-Peo. v. Carver, 5 Colo. A.
156. 38 P 332.

Fla.-Charlotte Harbor, etc., R. Co.
v. Welles, 18 Fla. 227, 82 S 770.
Il-Keech v. Peo., 22 Ill. 478.
Ind. Lyon v. Kee, 120 Ind. 150, 22
NE 128.

Iowa.-Marks v. Woodbury County,
47 Iowa 452.

Miss. De Soto County V. Dean, 120 Miss. 334, 82 S 257.

Mo-State v. Colbert, 273 Mo. 198. 201 SW 52.

Ida. Good Road Dist. No. 2 V. N. H.-Kimball v. Russell, 56 N. Washington County, 27 Ida. 732, 152 H. 488; Palmer v. Carroll, 24 N. H. P 183; Genesee v. Latah County, 4 314; Thompson v. Fellows, 21 N. H. Ida. 141, 36 P 701.

425.

N. J.-Morgan v. Monmouth Plank
Road Co., 26 N. J. L. 99.

Pa.-Pitt Tp. Road Case, 8 Watts
& S. 74.

131, 69 NW 436; Marks v. Wood- S. C.-Little v. Willimon, 103 S. C.
bury, 47 Iowa 452.
50, 87 SE 435; Lillard v. Melton,
103 S. C. 10, 87 SE 421.
295.

La.-Joyce Co. v. Tangipahoa Parish Police Jury, 146 La. 322. 83 S 587. See Lancaster V. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury, 254 Fed. 179. Mass. McCormick v. Boston, 120 Mass. 499.

773; Cumnock v. Alexander, 139 Ark. 153, 213 SW 767; Hamby v. Pittman, 139 Ark. 341, 213 SW 755; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549, 213 SW 762; Marshall v. Baugh, 133 Ark. 64, 201 SW 808; Bennett v. Johnson, 130 Ark. 507, 197 SW 1148; Conway v. Miller County Highway, etc., Dist., 125 Ark. 325, 188 SW 822; Nall v. Kelley, 120 Ark. 277, 179 SW 486; Cox v. Lenoke County Road Impr. Dist. No. 8, 118 Ark. 119, 176 SW 676.

Cal-Swall v. Los Angeles County,
184 P 406; Potter v. Santa Barbara
County, 160 Cal. 349, 116 P 1101.
Fla.-Stewart V. De Land-Lake
Helen Special Road, etc., Dist., 71
Vt.-Newbury v. Tenney, 2 Aik. Fla. 158. 71 S 42.
La-Joyce Co. v. Tangipahoa Par-
Wash.-Spokane, etc.. R. Co. V. ish Police Jury, 146 La. 322, 83 S 587.
Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 See Wright v. Avoyelles Parish Po-
P 113; Robertson v. King County, 20lice Jury, 264 Fed. 705.

Constitu

be valid in part and invalid in part.73
tional provisions as to districts entirely within city
limits may not govern other road districts."

Construction of statutes. Statutes creating or authorizing the creation of highway or road districts should be reasonably and liberally construed 75 in favor of their validity,76 and to carry out the legislative intent.77 The federal courts are bound to follow the decisions of the highest courts of a state on questions relating to the state construction and the validity demanded of statutes relating to highway or road districts.78

79

tion of a district including the former district has been held to impliedly repeal the former statute so far as a construction of the latter road law is concerned.80

[ 271] 4. Mode of Creation and Proceedings Therefor-a. In General. The legislature except as limited by the constitution,81 or the delegated agency except as restricted by statute,82 may adopt any method it chooses for the establishment of districts.83

[272] b. Proceedings for Creation. The proceedings for the establishment of a district must comply with the provisions prescribed by statute, or the local authorities to whom the matter has been

The repeal of a statute of this character is governed by the general rules." The subsequent creaMiss.-Prather v. Googe, 108 Miss. I should not become operative until its, and the general public by the build670, 67 S 156. adoption by the electors, is not in- ing of good roads, it is the duty of Mo.--Harris v. William R. Comp- valid because there is no provision the court to bring order out of chaos, notice. ton Bond, etc., Co., 244 Mo. 664, 149 for Thompson V. Trice, if possible." Lancaster v. Avoyelles SW 603. (Ark.) 223 SW 367. 368 ("for the Parish Police Jury, supra. reason that it was within the power 76. See Constitutional Law § 220 of the Legislature to create the dis-et seq; Statutes [36 Cyc 974]. trict without submitting the adop- [a] Doubtful conflict between contion thereof to the qualified voters stitution and statute will be resolved of the district"). in favor of the statute. Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549, 213 SW 762.

N. J.--Brant v. Tracey, 70 N. J. L. 497, 57 A 125; Allison v. Corker, 67 N. J. L. 596, 52 A 362, 60 LRA 564; Morgan v. Monmouth Plank Road Co., 26 N. J. L. 99.

Oh.-Harding V. Agnue, 18 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 476.

v.

[j] Oath of office. A statute creating a road district is not void beVa.-Narrows v. Giles County, 128 cause it fails to provide that the Va. 572, 105 SE 82. See also Con-commissioners must take an oath of stitutional Law § 234 et seq. office, the members of the board of [a] Illustration.-The mere fact commissioners not being officers that a special legislative act au- within a constitutional provision rethorizing the appointment by aquiring all officers to take and subcounty board of road commissioners scribe an oath before entering upon for a district in certain cases de- the duties of their office. Nall clares that such commissioners Kelley, 120 Ark. 277, 179 SW 486. "shall be a body corporate with the [k] A constitutional provision that powers and duties hereinafter speci- the state shall be divided into counfied" does not render the act in-ties does not invalidate a statute valid under Oh. Const. art 13 § 1, authorizing the creation of road_disproviding that "the General Assembly shall pass no special act conferring corporate powers," as such provision is construed by the supreme court of the state, where the powers and duties enumerated are only such as are ordinarily conferred and imposed upon officers or boards charged with the supervision of public improvements. Rees V. Olmsted, 135 Fed. 296, 68 CCA 50.

[b] Due process of law.-Lancaster v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury, 254 Fed. 179 (Louisiana); Conlee v. Miller. 144 Ark. 56, 221 SW 465; Nall v. Kelley, 120 Ark. 277. 179 SW 486; Prather v. Googe, 108 Miss. 670, 67 S 156.

[c] Embracing subjects not within title.Potter V. Santa Barbara County, 160 Cal. 349, 116 P 1101: Narrows v. Giles County, 128 Va. 572, 105 SE 82.

tricts. Stewart V. De Land-Lake

Helen Special Road, etc., Dist., 71
Fla. 158, 71 S 42.

77. Ark.-Self v. Greene County Road Impr. Dist. No. 1, 223 SW 402; Bradley County Road Impr. Dist. Nos. 1 and 2 v. Jarratt, 144 Ark. 260, 222 SW 14; Hill v. Echols, 140 Ark. 474, 215 SW 882; Booe v. Sims, 139 Ark. 595, 215 SW 659; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549, 213 SW 762. Cal. Potter V. Santa Barbara County, 160 Cal. 349, 116 P 1101. Colo.-Peo. v. Carver, 5 Colo. A. 156, 38 P 332.

Fla.-Charlotte Harbor, etc., R. Co. v. Welles, 78 Fla. 227, 82 S 770. Miss.-Prather v. Googe, 108 Miss. 670, 67 S 156. [1] Public character of road.-It Mo.Cass County Raymore Spec. is not essential to the validity of a Road Dist. v. Huber, 212 Mo. 551, statute, creating road improvement 111 SW 472; State v. Gordon, 197 districts, that it should contain ex- Mo. 55, 94 SW 987. press declarations that the roads to Tex. Moore v. Bell County Comrs. be improved had already been es-Ct., (Civ. A.) 175 SW 849. tablished as public roads. Easley v. Wash.-Spokane, etc., R. Co. Patterson, 142 Ark. 52, 218 SW 381. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 P 113.

[m] Presumption in favor of validity of statutes.-Easley v. Patterson, 142 Ark. 52, 218 SW 381. See Constitutional Law § 220; Statutes [36 Cyc 974]; and infra note 76.

[n] Question of the reasonableness of a statute is not ordinarily a subject for judicial inquiry. Willis v. Osceola County Special Road, etc., Dist., 73 Fla. 446, 74 S 495. See Constitutional Law § 219; Statutes [36 Cyc 1103].

[0] Two districts may be created by one statute. Johns v. Bradley County Road Impr. Dist., 142 Ark. 73. 218 SW 389.

V.

See also Statutes [36 Cyc 1106]. [a] "District” and “division” synonymous.-Potter v. Santa Barbara County, 160 Cal. 349, 116 P 1101.

[b] "Divide" meaning to "create."-Spokane, etc., R. Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 P 113. [c] "Shall" meaning "may." Bradley County Road Impr. Dist. Nos. 1 and 2 v. Jarratt, 144 Ark. 260, 222 SW 14.

78.

[d] Encroachment on existing con[d] "Improvement of roads" may stitutional boards, courts, or entities. not include establishment of "new -White v. Arkansas, etc, Highway roads." Cox v. Lenoke County Road Dist., (Ark.) 227 SW 261; Conlee v. Impr. Dist. No. 8, 118 Ark. 119, 176 Miller. 144 Ark. 56, 221 SW 465; [p] Road "improvement" district. SW 676. Van Hook v. Wallace, 143 Ark. 203,It is not necessary that the statLancaster v. Avoyelles Parish 220 SW 37; Dickinson v. Reeder, 143ute should state that the roads to be Police Jury, 254 Fed. 179. See FedArk. 228, 220 SW 32; Johns v. Brad-improved had already been estab-eral Courts § 171. ley County Road Impr. Dist., 142 Ark.lished as public roads. Easley v. 79. Bush V. Delta Road Impr. 73, 218 SW 389; Easley v. Patter- Patterson, 142 Ark. 52, 218 SW 381. son, 142 Ark. 52, 218 SW 381; Bush Territorial extent see infra 273. V. Lee County Delta Road Impr. 73. Easley v. Patterson. 142 Ark. Dist., 141 Ark. 247. 216 SW 690; 52. 218 SW 381; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Reitzammer V. Desha Road Impr. Ark. 549, 213 SW 762; Parkview Dist. No. 2, 139 Ark. 168, 213 SW | Land Co. v. Jefferson County Road 773; Sallee v. Dalten, 138 Ark, 549, 213 SW 762; Nall v. Kelley, 120 Ark. 277, 179 SW 486; Prather v. Googe, 108 Miss. 670, 67 S 156.

[e] Equal protection of laws. Miller v. Kern County, 137 Cal. 516, 70 P 549.

[f] Taken or damaged property without compensation. - Thomas V. Pridham, 171 Cal. 98, 153 P 933. See Morgan v. Monmouth Plank Road Co., 26 N. J. L. 99 (quære).

[g] Qualification for right of suffrage. Potter V. Santa Barbara County, 160 Cal. 349, 116 P 1101.

[h] Unwarranted delegation of legislative authority-Van Hook v. Wallace. 143 Ark. 203, 220 SW 37.

[1] Notice-A statute, creating a road district and providing that it

Impr. Dist. No. 1, 92 Ark. 93, 122 SW
241; Morgan V. Monmouth Plank
Road Co., 26 N. J. L. 99; Narrows
v. Giles County, 128 Va. 572, 105 SE
82. See Constitutional Law § 227;
Statutes [36 Cyc 976].

74. Nall v. Kelley, 120 Ark. 277,
179 SW 486; Cox v. Lenoke County
Road Impr. Dist. No. 8, 118 Ark.
119, 176 SW 676.
75. Lancaster v. Avoyelles Parish
Police Jury. 254 Fed. 179, 184; Van
Hook v. Wallace, 143 Ark. 203, 220
SW 37; Faucette v. Patterson, 140
Ark. 628, 215 SW 300; Pulaski County
Impr. Road Dist. No. 2 v. Winkler,
102 Ark. 553, 145 SW 209; and cases
infra note 76.

"Considering the great benefit to
be derived by the nation, the state,

Dist.. 141 Ark. 247, 216 SW 690;
Faucette v. Patterson, 140 Ark. 628,
216 SW 300; Polk v. Booker, 112 Ark.
101, 165 SW 262; Jones v. Oldham,
109 Ark. 24, 158 SW 1075; Thomas
v. Pridham, 171 Cal. 98, 153 P 933;
Potter v. Santa Barbara County, 160
Cal. 349, 116 P 1101; Miller v. Kern
County, 137 Cal. 516, 70 P 549; Te-
hama County v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57,
8 P 673; Cass County Raymore Spec.
Road Dist. v. Huber, 212 Mo. 551,
111 SW 472; State v. Gordon, 197 Mo.
55, 94 SW 987. See Constitutional
Law § 97; Statutes [36 Cyc 1068].
80. Bush V. Delta Road Impr.
Dist., 141 Ark. 247, 216 SW 690.
81.
82.

See constitutional provisions.
See statutory provisions.
83. Sparks v. Holloway, (Ark.) 227
SW 981; Hill v. Echols, 140 Ark. 474,
215 SW 882; Pulaski County Impr.
Road Dist. No. 2 v. Winkler, 102
Ark. 553, 145 SW 209; Hopkins v.
Brevard County Spec. Road, etc.,
Dist., 73 Fla. 247, 74 S 310; De Soto

delegated. The proceeding, under some statutes, has been referred to as a special statutory proceeding 85 in the nature of a proceeding in rem.86

Jurisdiction. In proceedings to establish a district by a court or other body to whom the power has been delegated, the jurisdiction of such court or other body must affirmatively appear.87 The court or board must not only have power to entertain jurisdiction in the first place,88 but it must always act within its jurisdiction.89 Want of jurisdiction can be raised at any time.90 The finding of the court or board that it has jurisdiction is not conclusive of that fact.91 Where the court or board has jurisdiction over the subject matter generally, the owners of the lands concerned may, by their acts and conduct, submit to the jurisdiction of such court or board, for the purpose of determining the advisability or necessity for the establishment of a road improvement district.92

Preliminary survey, etc. Statutory provisions requiring the filing of preliminary surveys, plans, specifications, and estimates of cost,93 have been considered as mandatory, and a compliance thereCounty v. Dean, 120 Miss. 334, 82 Sact intelligently. Luck v. Magnolia257. McNeil Road Impr. Dist. No. 1, 141 Ark. 603, 606, 217 SW 781.