TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jenkins County v. Dickey

Jenkins Cnty. v. Dickey, 76 S.E. 856 (Ga. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 10, 1912
Judges
Beck
Citations
76 S.E. 856139 Ga. 911912 Ga. LEXIS 539
Summary
Equitable petition. Before Judge' Bawlings. Jenkins superior court. December 9, 1911. Benjamin Dickey brought his petition against Jenkins County, and alleged: that,'in order to allow a certain public road to be somewhat straightened, he had agreed to permit the road-working gang to run the road for a distance through his field, provided the county would build for him on either side of the road for the extent of his field a woven-wire fence, complying in all respects with the specifications of a lawful fence, and provided the county would at once erect a gate at each end of the field where the road entered and left the same, to be kept up and maintained by the county until it should build the fences above referred to; that thereupon the county placed the road through petitioners field and built the gates as per agreement; that this was done about June, 1909, and on March 28, 1910, the county authorities, without potice or warning to petitioner, and without having built the fence along the road through petitioner’s field, and still failing and refusing to do so, removed the gates and left petitioner’s field exposed to stock and cattle, it being a “fence country,” and there being a great many cattle and hogs at .large in that community; and that he had replaced the gates, but the county authorities threatened to again remove them. He prayed that they be enjoined from removing or interfering with the gates until they had erected the fences along the road through his field as they had agreed to do, or should pay to him the sum of $200, it being alleged, that it would cost him that sum to build the fence; and he prayed for a judgment against the count)7 in the sum of $200. The county filed a general demurrer to the petition, which the court overruled, and the county excepted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Beck

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Beck, J.

1. Where authorities having charge of the roads of the county accepted a conditional dedication of a strip of land to be used in laying out a public road, and actually laid out a public road, over the same, they will not be permitted to repudiate their contract with the dedicator by refusing to .discharge certain obligations undertaken by them in accepting the dedication, to the injury of the dedicator. If the conditions imposed intolerable burdens upon the public use to which the land dedicated was to be appropriated, the dedication should have been rejected entirely. The contract between the dedicator and the county authorities will not be held to be valid so far as it confers benefits upon the public and invalid so far as it 'relates to the conditions stipulated by the dedicator in order to protect and safeguard his property.

2. The court did not err in overruling the demurrers, general in their nature, to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

W. V. Tyler and W. TL. Davis, for plaintiff in error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1916: 11923: 11930: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Macon v. Georgia Power Co.155 S.E. 34 (Ga. 1930)
  2. Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Town of Decatur116 S.E. 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
  3. City of Atlanta v. Akers89 S.E. 764 (Ga. 1916)

Most recent

  1. City of Macon v. Georgia Power Co.155 S.E. 34 (Ga. 1930)
  2. Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Town of Decatur116 S.E. 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
  3. City of Atlanta v. Akers89 S.E. 764 (Ga. 1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list