Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-12-22
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
pIoEsTED BY w. 3. MARTIN.
HARRIsoNBURG ". ROLLER.
tExclusively for virgln:an-Pilot.,

HARRISONBURG ". ROLLER,
Supreme Court OF Appeals of Virginia.
November 16, 1899.
A CITY, HAVING POWER TO OPEN
AND IMPROVE ITS STREETS. IS
NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO
AN ADJOINING OWNER, WHOSE
LAND is NOT TAKEN, FOR RAILS
ING THE GRADE OF THE
STREET, IF THE WORK is DONE
WITH REASONABLE CARE AND
SKILL.
EQUITY WILL NOT ENJoIN SUCH
AN IMPROVEMENT IF DONE IN
GOOD FAITH; THE LAND OWNER
CAN SUE AT Law IF REASON
ABLE CARE IS NOT USED.
THE COUNCIL MAY DELEGATE TO
THE STREET COMMITTEE THE
EXECUTION OF SUCH WORK.
This was a suit by Roller to restrain
the town of Harrisonburg from raising
the grade OF the sidewalk in the
street in front of his residence. on the
ground that such raising of the side
Walk would cause wat=r to flow into h
yard and also ipjure the appearance OF
his property. The lower court perpet-
uated the injunction and The town APP
Eealed.
The Court says:
II the corporation acting in these
matters under the powers conferred
upor it exercises reasonable care and
Skill in the performance Of the work re-
solved upon, 1t Is not answerable to the
owner of an adjacent lot, whose land is
not actually taken, for consequential
damages to his premises unless there
Is a provision In its charter or in some
statute creating the liability. which, it
is not pretended exists in this case.
Such damage is not an injury In the
legal sense, and the law provides no
remedy for 1t, 1t is damnum aliesque in
jurla.
If the work is done in the exercise
Of power conferred upon the municipal
body and is executed In a reasonably
proper and skillful manner, the city or
town is exempt from legal liabil ty. al
though the work may be attended or
followed by damage, as a necs ssary in
cident TO the owner of an adjacent lot.
If 1t is not so executed and damage re-
suits from the manner Of It's execution
to the owner of an adjacent lot, such
damage is not necessarily an incident
to the accomplishment of the work, and
the owner, in that case, has redress
against the city or town by an action
of tort.
Courts of equity have no authority to
interfere by injunction with the exer-
else In good faith by municipal bodies
of discretionary powers conferred upon
them by law. If damage ensues to the
owner of an adjacent lot from the i'm
proper or unskillful performance Of
the work done within the scope OF such
power, his remedy is by an action at
law and not In equity. Clearly court
of equity could not interfere and re-
strain the performance of the work
upon the apprehension of the owner Of
the lot that it may not be properly
performed.
The grading and laying of the side
walk In question. MS proposed by the
Council of the town, was expressed
within the power conferred uron It,
The result of such interference by a
court of equity would be to control abb
solutely the Council of O. city or town
in the exercise of the legislative func-
tions plainly conferred upon 1t by the
charter of the city or town and to be
exercised by the Council according 10
its discretion; 70 usurp powers eXpress-
~ conferred upon the Council, and to
substitute the discretion of the Court in
the place of that of the Council.
1T was argued that the Council had
delegated to the discretion of its Street
Committee the work of raising the
sidewalk in front of the residence of the
appellee, which discretionary power
was vested in the Council alone and
was Incapable of being delegated by 1t.
The evidence in the case refutes the
contention.
The Council ordered the work to be
done, prescribed how it should be done.
and left its execution to the Street
Committee. This was no undue delega-
ton of power. Reversed.
RHODES v. RHODES.
Supreme Court Of North Carolina.