Ellsworth v. Chickasaw County

40 Iowa 571
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided June 15, 1875·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Beck, J.

This case involves the same principles of law recognized by us in Brady v. Shinkle, post. It differs therefrom in facts only in the circumstances- that the land of the [572] estate, of wliicb plaintiff is administratrix, lies adjacent to the vacated road. This does not create in plaintiff a right to the continuance of the road different from that possessed by other persons whose lands do not touch it. Neither does it remove the .highway beyond the control of the county authorities without payment of damages to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s interests are affected not differently by the vacation of the road than they would have been had it laid away from her land. She may have been injured in a greater degree, but the character and nature of her damages are not different. Following the decision above referred to, we hold that the Circuit Court rightly held that plaintiff could not recover compensation for the vacation of the road.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ellsworth v. Chickasaw County, 40 Iowa 571 (iowa 1875).

40 Iowa 571 (Ellsworth v. Chickasaw County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Magdefrau v. Washington County
293 N.W. 574 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1940)
Hubbell v. City of Des Moines
173 Iowa 55 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1915)
McKinney v. Baker
69 N.W. 683 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1896)
Grove v. Allen
61 N.W. 175 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1894)
State v. City of Elizabeth
24 A. 495 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1892)
Stubenrauch v. Neyenesch
54 Iowa 567 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1880)