Court Opinion

ID: 9773979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:05:34.462258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:59.947864
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
The complainants have filed a petition to rehear, which states:
‘‘Now, the point we are raising is simply this:
“That we are entitled to have Your Honors decide in the case at Bar whether or not the original complainants have a right to have the Chancery Court of Obion County at least determine title to this land, because it is only after the Chancery Court has determined title to it that we would be entitled to sue under the reverse condemnation statute.”
In our original opinion we pointed out that in Fritts v. Leech, 201 Tenn. 18, 296 S.W.2d 834, both the complainant, Fritts, and the defendant, Leech, as Commissioner of Highways and Public Works of the State, were asserting title to a parcel of land that was in the possession of the State. One prayer of the bill in Fritts was for a decree declaring the complainant to be the owner of the property. The Court there held that, by reason of Article 1, Section 17 of the Constitution of Tennessee and T.C.A. sec. 20-1702, the relief thus prayed for could not be granted. In Fritts, it was further held that the complainant had a plain and adequate remedy at law under T.C.A. sec. 23-1423.
If, within the time allowed by law, an action is commenced under T.C.A. sec. 23-1423 alleging that the plaintiff is the owner of certain property and that the defendant has actually taken possession of such land, occupying it for the purposes of internal improvement, and the defendant in its pleas denies the plaintiff is the *653. owner of such, property, we know of no reason wby the issue thus made could not be tried.in a proper proceeding instituted under T.C.A. sec. 23-1423.
In Johnson v. Roane County, 212 Tenn. 433, 370 S.W.2d 496, tbe opinion shows that in an action instituted under T.C.A. sec. 23-1423 the defendant, Roane County, filed “a plea in abatement on the ground other persons than the plaintiffs not parties to the suit owned a substantial interest in the land”. The Trial Judge sustained the plea in abatement and dismissed the suit.
Also, in Southern Railway Co. v. Grifitts, 42 Tenn. App. 494, 304 S.W.2d 508, in an action brought under T.C.A. sec. 23-1423, the defendant "filed a number of special pleas, among other things denying that plaintiffs were the owners of the strip of land ‘ # * referred to in plaintiffs’ declaration’ and asserting that it was the owner of said strip of land.” There, the Circuit Judge determined that a deed under which defendant claimed title to the land conveyed only an easement and not a fee simple title, which easement had been abandoned many years before defendant entered upon the land. The Court of Appeals in Grifitts affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and this Court denied certiorari.
In any action brought under T.C.A. sec. 23-1423 it is, of course, incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that he is the owner of the land which has been taken for the purposes of internal improvement if the ownership is denied by the defendant.
The appeal before the Court is from the decree of the Chancellor sustaining the demurrer of the State and the State officials sued in their official capacities. Any rights the complainants may have against the defendants, W. H. *654Hines and wife and Maurice Finch and wife, are not now before the Court.
The Chancellor properly sustained the demurrer of the State and State officials. The petition to rehear is denied.