Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1896-08-13
THE GRAY ROAD CASE.

Many will remember the road case
in the last term of the District court,
brought from the town of Gray; the
title of which was G. +. McLachlin
against the town of Gray.
The questions in the case are such
that there have been different decisions
from different courts, and the fact
that the vacating and establishing of
roads is question that is constantly
comming up before town councils and
boards of supervisors makes the de-
cision in this case of general interest
Mr.. McLachlin owns farm adjoin-
ing the town of Gray, and along the
south side of the farm is what has
always been the principal highway
from the west into the town. This
road has been used for years and has
been kept In repair by the public
Close to this road Mr.. McLachlin built
his house, barn and other improve.
ments.
The incorporation of the town of
Gray took part of the farm inside of
the town limits, and the town council
passed an ordinance vacating a portion
of this highway and provided another
road to take it's place.
Mr.. McLachlin brought suit to EN-
Join the town council from carrying
the proposed ordinance into effect. on
the ground that the vacating of the
road left him without access to his
buildings, thereby greatly decreasing
the value of his farm.
The question in the case was
"whether city council has power to
vacate a street without providing for
compensation to those whose land
abuts thereon"
Judge Green filed his decision in
favor of the plaintiff, this week, and
while it is to lengthy for publication,
the decision is of interest and part
Of it is given here. Numerous
authorities are cited and in sum.
ming up the opinion says, "In the
case at bar 1t is clear that McLachlin
would never have placed his buildings
where they are had not highway been
close by. tits equally clear that the
damages he has sustained .are not the
same as those Of the public at large.
The fact that he has access by
round about way" only makes his
injury differ in degree and not in kind.
Itwould hardly be claimed that if the
owner of a building lot had other lots
over which he could cross to another
street, that therefore, the street could,
be vacated. The cases denying com
pensation are nearly all where the
street was merely narrowed or when
it was vacated in front of the premises
of the party complaining and there
fore have Multiplication to the state of
facts under consideration.
My conclusion is that while the de-
cisiOns are not entirely harmonious
that by far the greater weight of
authority supports the plaintiffs case.
/ am more inclined to this view also,
because it seems to me that reason and
justice both forbid that any municipal
ity should induce a man, by the
location Of highway to put his build
ings adjoining it, and then vacate the
road and make the improvements en-
tirely unsuitable.
In some cases it would be no more
damage if the buildings were torn
down and taken away. TO refuse the
injured party compensation therefor
is to take his property without COM
pensatiOn denying his constitutional
rights. AS the ordinancejn question
made no provision for the compensat.
ing the complainant, the defendant
exceeded his rights in passing it, and
it is void as to the plaintiff.