Poythress v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad

46 So. 139, 92 Miss. 638
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 46 So. 139 (Poythress v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Poythress v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad, 46 So. 139, 92 Miss. 638 (Mich. 1908).

Opinion

Mates, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Annotated Code 1892, § 2945 (Code 1906, § 8336), empowers the municipality to vacate any street, or alley, or any portion thereof. This controversy arose under the law as it stood under the Code of 1892; but, even if this were not the case, Pothress is not an abutting landowner upon this street, entitling him to have compensation first made to him before the closing of the street; within the meaning of Code 1906, § 3336, as he owns no property abutting the closed portion. Cram v. City of Laconia, 71 N. H., 41, 51 Atl., 635, 57 L. R. A., 282.

We are unwilling to hold that a municipality cannot dose a street, when in its judgment it is for the public good. In such case the individual right of the citizen must yield. The ordinance providing for the closing of this street was passed, as the ordinance declares, because the municipal authorities believed that the safety of the public demanded it. Under these conditions it was in the power of the municipality to order the street closed If the complainants have suffered any special damage by the closing of this street, not shared in by all the public, they have recourse against the municipality; but, in the meantime, it is within the power of the municipality to close the street, if [651]*651in tbe judgment of the municipality it is dangerous' to pedestrians and others, and this can be done without interference toPoythress. To deny the municipality this right would be to-deny to it tbe power to exercise one of the most important protective duties that it owes to the public.

The ease of Laurel v. Rowell, 84 Miss., 435, 36 South., 543, is quite distinct from the case made by tbis record. Iu the case above cited it was not shown that there was any public necessity for the closing of the alley, and, the complainant in that case-being an abutting owner, the court said that the action of the-mayor and board of aldermen was unwarranted.

A ffirméd.

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

Related

Collins v. Mississippi State Highway Commission
102 So. 2d 678 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1958)
BOARD OF M. & A. OF YAZOO CITY v. Wilson
99 So. 2d 674 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1958)
Board of Mayor v. Wilson
99 So. 2d 674 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1958)
Burkett v. Ross
86 So. 2d 33 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1956)
Hamilton v. Mississippi State Highway Comm.
70 So. 2d 856 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1954)
Puyper v. Pure Oil Co.
60 So. 2d 569 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1952)
Dick v. City of Hinton
156 S.E. 81 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1930)
Town of Wesson v. Swinney
110 So. 669 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926)
City of Jackson v. Welch
101 So. 361 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1924)
Shoemaker v. Coleman
47 So. 649 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1909)
Town of Clinton v. Turner
52 So. 261 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 So. 139, 92 Miss. 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poythress-v-mobile-ohio-railroad-miss-1908.