Court Opinion

ID: 9810408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:49:23.350892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:54.422763
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
dissenting: I cannot concur in the opinion of the court because, it seems to- me, to deny to the plaintiff a substantial right will establish a dangerous precedent. The statute under which the condemnation proceedings were had says in express words: “If the land owner shall think the amount assessed is below the actual value of the land taken, *198nothing herein shall be construed, to deprive him of his right to> appeal or to sue de novo for damages against the corporation for the value of the land.” But the opinion of the court says that “It will be observed that this section does not confer any new right but says he shall not be deprived of his right to appeal or sue de novo." This brings us to the consideration of what are the rights of the citizen in the protection of his property. The opinion of the court seems to' assume that in the case at bar the plaintiff had none out side of the statute. In this view I cannot concur. Suppose that the statute had failed to' provide any method by which the land could be assessed, would the plaintiff have been deprived of all compensation? In my opinion the citizen has primarily the same rights and remedies for the protection of his property against corporate aggression as he would have against an individual. Let us briefly examine the Constitution of this State and see what are some of the rights of the individual. The Declaration of Rights declares, Section 17, “No person ought to be.in any manner, deprived of his life, liberty or property but by the law of the land.” Section 35, “All courts shall he open, and every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.” In Jester v. Steam Packet Co., 131 N. C., 54, this court, speaking through Justice Montgomery, says: “The courts of this State are open to all suitors, resident and nonresident, whether individuals or corporations.” In this principle, so clearly enunciated, I fully concur and favor its universal application wherever existing conditions will permit. I am aware of the decisions holding that in certain cases the statutory remedy is exclusive; but this can be so only where, at least in the opinion of the court, the statutory remedy is adequate and it appears to be the clear intention *199of the legislature, either in express words or by necessary implication, to make it exclusive. Even then I do not think it would be constitutional unless demanded by some public necessity.
In the case at bar the statute expressly disclaims any intention of depriving the land owner of any right he may have to an appeal or suit de novo for the purpose of ascertaining and recovering adequate compensation. He cannot recover the land because it has been lawfully condemned, but he can recover his just compensation. To say that the plaintiff cannot recover his just compensation because the land was lawfully condemned, when the city has statutory authority to condemn whatever land it sees fit, amounts to an assertion of the right to- take land without compensation. From any such proposition I am compelled to dissent.