Case Name: M. L. DAVIS v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION and PASQUOTANK HIGHWAY COMMISSION
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1926-01-27
Citations: 191 N.C. 146
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. L. DAVIS v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION and PASQUOTANK HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 191
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
M. L. DAVIS v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION and PASQUOTANK HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
(Filed 27 January, 1926.)
Government — State Highway Commission — Highways—Detours.
The State Highway Com,mission, as a governmental agency, is not subject to an action in tort for damages by the owner for the temporary taking of a part of his lands for a necessary detour for travel upon the State’s highway. Jennmgs v. State Highway Commission, and Latham v. State Highway Commission, applied.
Appeal by plaintiff from Crammer, J., at January Term, 1925, of PASQUOTANK.
Civil action in tort, instituted in tbe Superior Court of Pasquotank County, to recover of tbe defendant damages for tbe temporary use, pending tbe construction of a bridge on tbe State highway, of a right of way through plaintiff’s farm, as a detour, said detour following an old road to plaintiff’s pasture, and then across bis pasture and out through bis front gate back to tbe State highway.
On tbe bearing, it was admitted, for tbe purposes of this suit, “that plaintiff owns tbe land described in tbe complaint, and that tbe detour established over tbe lands by tbe defendants was a lawful act on tbeir part in constructing tbe road named in tbe pleadings and provided a proper detour while said main highway was closed.”
At tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, there was a judgment as of nonsuit, entered on motion of tbe defendants, from which plaintiff appeals.
Aydl&tt & Simpson for plaintiff.
W. L. Gohoon, W. L. Small and Ehringhaus & Hall for defendants.

Opinion:
Stacy, C. J.,
after stating tbe case: Tbe judgment of nonsuit sustaining tbe demurrer to tbe evidence must be affirmed on authority of Jennings v. Highway Com., 183 N. C., 68, and Latham v. Highway Com., ante, 141.
Affirmed.