Court Opinion

ID: 9517682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:28:42.873016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:43.127523
License: Public Domain

On Petition For Rehearing
Carson, P. J.
We have examined the petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiff-appellants. We conclude that no new questions are presented for our consideration by this petition. We would point out that the questions raised by the petition are new and additional points not adequately covered or presented to this court for consideration in the original appeal. A careful consideration of the points raised in the appellants’ original brief indicates that the questions presented in the petition for rehearing were not presented to this court by cogent argument and the application of authorities.
We have considered the petition for rehearing filed in the above matter by the appellee, Ohio Valley Gas Corporation. *417We find no merit to the argument contained in the petition. The petitioner, appellee, contends that we have overruled a ruling precedent of the Supreme Court of Indiana in the case of Magee v. Overshiner (1898), 150 Ind. 127, 49 N. E. 951. We would call attention to the fact that the Magee case involved a public way in a municipality and Indiana has made a distinction in applying the rule between roads and ways in a municipality and those in rural communities.
While this distinction has been criticized in other jurisdictions, we are nevertheless obligated to follow the law as it is in Indiana and we do not pass upon the wisdom of the distinction. We should also like to call attention to the fact that a very exhaustive opinion on a similar question to that presented in the instant case, was decided by the Court of Appeals of New York in the case of Heyert v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. (1966), 17 N. Y. 2d 352, 218 N. E. 2d 263.
We shall not burden this opinion with extracts from that case since it covered eight printed pages, but we would invite attention to the language used by the court on page 270 of the opinion: (Judge Keating concurs in a separate opinion).
“I agree that the order appealed from should be affirmed only because I feel constrained by the numerous decisions of this court which make the rule to be followed unmistakably clear (see Thompson v. Orange & Rockland Elec. Co., 254 N. Y. 366, 173 N. E. 224; Osborne v. Auburn Tel. Co., 189 N. Y. 393, 82 N. E. 428; Holden v. City of New York, 7 N. Y. 2d 840, 196 N. Y. S. 2d 712, 164 N. E. 2d 728). But a rule which had its origin in the limited uses to which public streets were once put should not forever handicap the obvious necessities of modern day needs. At this late date, however, any change to be made should only be made by the Legislature.”
We should also invite attention to the fact that the appellant urged that a permanent injunction should be granted for the reason that there had been a taking of appellants’ land without compensation and therefore a violation of his rights under the Constitution of the State of Indiana. In this connec*418tion, we point out that the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana in transferring the case to the Appellate Court for disposition held adversely to the appellant on this question in saying that no constitutional question was involved.
Both petitions are therefore denied.
Cooper, J., Faulconer, J., and Prime, J., concur.
Note. — Reported in 222 N. E. 2d 412. Rehearing denied 228 N. E. 2d 42.