TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Palmer v. Vance

James S. Palmer v. Robert Vance, County Commissioners of Saline County

Palmer v. Vance, 62 N.W. 857 (Neb. 1895)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 3, 1895
Docket
No. 6272
Judges
Noryal
Citations
62 N.W. 85744 Neb. 3481895 Neb. LEXIS 54
Headnotes
Highways: Location: Damages: Road Funds. . The damages sustained by the land-owner by reason of the location of a public highway cannot be paid out of the county road fund, but must be paid out of moneys in the road fund of the road district in which the laud taken lor the highway is situated. Aclcerman v. Thummel, 40 Neb., 95, followed.
Summary
Error from the district court of Saline county. Tried below before Hastings, J.

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

Opinion of the Court — Noryal

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

Noryal, C. J.

A public road was located over lands belonging to the relator and his damages were allowed at $50. An appeal was taken to the district court, where he recovered the sum of $65 and costs taxed at $100.75. This action was brought against the respondents, as the county commissioners of Saline county, to compel them to draw a warrant in favor of the relator on the county road fund for the amount of said judgment and costs. A writ of mandamus was denied and the action dismissed.

A single question is presented for determination and that, is whether the respondents should have paid the judgment in controversy out of moneys in the county road fund. In Ackerman v. Thummel, 40 Neb., 95 , this court had under consideration the several statutory provisions relating to the location of highways and the payment of damages sustained by the land-owner by reason of the establishment of a public road, and it was there held that all such damages must be paid out of moneys in the road fund of the road district in which the land taken for highway purposes is situated, and that the county is not liable for the payment of such damages. The rule there announced is decisive of the case at bar, and that too against the contention of relator. The respondents having no authority to draw, a warrant on the county treasury in payment of the judgment, the district court did not err in refusing the writ of mandamus'. The judgment is

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1898: 11914: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hall v. State ex rel. Renard74 N.W. 590 (Neb. 1898)
  2. Clay County v. Howard145 N.W. 982 (Neb. 1914)

Most recent

  1. Clay County v. Howard145 N.W. 982 (Neb. 1914)
  2. Hall v. State ex rel. Renard74 N.W. 590 (Neb. 1898)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ackerman v. Thummel, 58 N.W. 738 (Neb. 1894) 6

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