Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1904-07-06
Bridge Decision

HOafU Oh Dul'tt y iSoiS "iiN Ooouin
- The Board OF Supervisors,
which were taken before Judge
Harrison in vacation and an in
junction asked for TO stop the
Bridge work until the claimed
damages had been paid, Judge
Harrison refused the injunction,
and the Bridge work is now going
RAPIDLY forward.
We publish the decision in full:
At the former hearing on the
demurrer, this Court refused to
grant the temporary injunction
except upon the ground that the
Board of Supervisors were neceS-
sarily obligated to exceed the
statutory cost TO the taxpayers of
so, 10000 in the construction of
the bridges.
This allegation in the Bill was
admitted 10y the demurrer and the
Court held, that if such was the
fact. the Board were acting ultra
wires, But the Board Immediately
filed their answer denying this allie
CATION, and the Court refused to
grant the injunction.
find nothing to Justify the
Court in the record now presented,
in believing that the Supervisors
will exceed the statutory limits
The contracts for the construction
of the bridges are within the Statu-
tory limits. and the Court cannot
indulge in wild speculation as to
any remote possibility.
1t is claimed that the bridges
will work in some CONFUSION of
nature an irreparable damage to
the buildings and gardens and.
other property of the several COM
plainants. This Is a speculative
matter which / hardly consider
possible to arise in any proceeding.
but the County of Clarke is author
lied to take property or TO damage
ii for the construction of the
bridges. provided it makes just
compensation for the property
taken or damaged. The second
section of the Act says: That the
said Board of Supervisors are
authorized tocondemn. purchase or
acquire by gift to the county, any
rights and sites necessary therefor,
ON either side of said river. in the
manner provided for by law, the
expense of acquiring the land to be
paid out of the general levy"
If the complainants have any
claim for damages. it arises out of
the constitutional provision which
prevents any individuals property
from being taken or damaged with
out Just compensation; and the
method of ascertaining the just
compensation is that prescribed in
condemnation proceedings. If com
pIalnantS' property or rights are
damaged, they are entitled to com
pensation to the extent and only to
the extent that they would be en-
titled if the proceedings had been in
condemnation proceedings. No
new liability is imposed upon cor
porate bodies exercising the power
of eminent domain. than was inn
posed prior to the Constitutional
provision, except that where prop
erty is damaged without being ac-
tually taken, compensation must be
paid therefor. But it is cOmpensa-
ton for the injury inflicted upon
the property, and not speculative,
possible and contingent injury that
might arise under abnormal and
peculiar circumstances. Such dam
age inflicted by the County in the
course of the erection of these
bridges, comes within the principle
and the spirit, if not the exact let
ter, of the second clause of the Act
above quoted. The compensation
Tor such right would be paid out
OF the general levy. and would be
no part of the $40, 900 limit i'm
posed by the Statue. | refused to
grant a preliminary injunction on
the ground of the claim of damages
10 the property, upon the former
hearing of the demurrer to the Bill.
Certainly the evidence cannot be
stronger than the admitted allega-
uons of the Bill. do not see that
the case in this respect presents a
case for an injunction. Even in
The cases of nuiSances committed
by private individuals who have no
right to take property or damage
IL without tkD c,,..out, .o.s.o..4