Court Opinion

ID: 9831133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:50:57.009492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:31.813424
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our opinion herein we did not mean to say, as is suggested by appellant in his motion for rehearing, that he should be denied relief because his injuries are of long standing, nor that he is not entitled to an injunction against the county because it is the public, and not the county in its corporate capacity, which is trespassing on his land.
If trespass is being committed by the use of his land as a public road, his proper remedy is that which he seeks herein, viz., by suit against the county to have the orders opening a road through his land declared void.
What we meant to say, and what we do say, is that, as appellant’s petition shows that the land in controversy has long been used as a public road, it does not appear that any serious and irreparable injury will be done him by its continuous use as such road until the case can be tried in the district court, at which time, if the evidence establishes the truth of his allegations, it must be presumed the district court will grant him adequate relief. Should it fail to do so, he has the right of appeal, and. we would then be able to pass on the case on its merits. Also we meant to say; and do say, that as it appears that the land in controversy is, and for a long time has been, used as a public road, the public interest ought to be considered, and the road ought not to be closed until the ease is tried on its merits, and appellant has shown himself entitled to such-relief, unless there was an emergency for such action.
If the appellees should by dilatory tactics deny appellant a trial upon the merits at the January term of the district court, we will, upon application showing such facts, grant appellant leave to file a second motion for a rehearing herein.
Motion overruled.