Court Opinion

ID: 3594018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:41:56.982592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.154600
License: Public Domain

[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 411 
We think that the provisions of chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895 are within the constitutional powers of the legislature, and that the order in this case should be affirmed. It is doubtless true that some of the provisions of the act pertaining to the acquiring of the fee and easements in discontinued streets, if they stood alone, might be construed as authorizing the taking of property for a private use, but when these provisions are considered in connection with the other provisions of the act, we find that they all aim at one object, and that is the laying out and opening of the streets and avenues of a city according to a plan adopted. Confessedly, this is for a public purpose, and we think that the acquiring of the fee and easements in the old roadways which are discontinued should be treated as incident and necessary to carry out the public improvement authorized by the provisions of the act.
We have not thought it necessary to enter upon a discussion of this question, for the reason that the very able opinion written below, in which we fully concur, covers all the points involved.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, and the questions certified answered in the affirmative.
All concur, except GRAY, J., absent.
Order affirmed. *Page 413