Court Opinion

ID: 9702035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:50:58.99049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:32.804937
License: Public Domain

Marbury, C. J.,
delivered the following dissenting opinion.
I agree that the demurrer should have been sustained as to the first count, and that it should have been overruled as to the third count, but I do not agree with the majority opinion on the second count. I think that the appellant has been deprived of the only use which it can make of the cemetery, that is, to sell lots for burial. The mere fact that it has a right of access does not mitigate against the fact that in all essential aspects, its property has been taken. Just because it is possible for a funeral cortege to drive in is not important, when the circumstances are such that no such cortege will drive in. And, of course, the only way a cemetery acquires any money is by selling lots. As the circumstances are *452such that no one will buy lots, the property of the appellant has just as surely been taken as if it were condemned and in the possession of the Airport. I shall not attempt to prolong this opinion by discussing authorities in support of this position. They are: Morrison v. Clackamas County, 141 Or. 564, 18 P. 2d 814, 816; In re Forsstrom et ux., 44 Ariz. 472, 38 P. 2d 878, 882; Commonwealth v. Kelley, 314 Ky. 581, 236 S. W. 2d 695, 697; Gasque v. Town of Conway, 194 S.. C. 15, 8 S. E. 2d 871, 873-874; Stockdale v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., 28 Utah 201, 77 P. 849, 852-853; Nalon v. Sioux City, 216 Iowa 1041, 250 N. W. 166.