State Highway Commission v. Batts

144 S.E.2d 126, 265 N.C. 346, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 986
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 29, 1965·No. 286·Published·Cited by 24 cases

Opinions

PaRKee, J.

Defendants first assign as error that Judge Bone erred in finding as a fact that on 6 June 1963 the State Highway Commission duly passed a resolution determining that it was necessary to appropriate an easement of right of way across the property of defendants herein for public use in the construction of Project 5.322, Nash County. Defendants’ second assignment of error is that Judge Bone erred in his finding of fact No. 5 “That the appropriation of Defendants’ property is for the purpose of constructing a State maintained public road.” Defendants’ third and last assignment of error, except a formal one to the judgment, is that Judge Bone erred in his conclusion of law “That the appropriation of right of way by the Plaintiff as alleged in the Complaint across property of Defendants herein is for a public use.”

Plaintiff offered in evidence an excerpt from the minutes of the State Highway Commission meeting held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on 6 June 1963 with eleven members present. This excerpt from the minutes shows that the following resolution, the material parts of which are quoted here, was introduced by Commissioner Elliott, seconded by Commissioner Webb, and being put to a vote was unanimously carried:

[351] “Wheeeas, right-of-way acquisition in accordance with the preliminary right-of-way plans on file in the Right-of-Way Department has heretofore been determined to be necessary and authorized by the Commission; and
“Whereas, the final plans for the following projects have been prepared and provide for the construction of the sections of highways embraced in said projects within the uniform parallel right-of-way widths as shown on the respective plans, * * * and
“Whereas, upon the recommendations of the engineers of the Commission, the Commission finds that such rights of way as shown on the final plans and hereinafter set out are necessary for the construction of said projects;
“Now, Therefore, Be and it is Hereby Resolved AND OrdaiNed that the rights of way for the location, construction, relocation and reconstruction of the sections of highways embraced in the following projects shall be as shown in detail on the final plans for said projects, as hereafter identified

Then follows a description of seven projects, and a description of the eighth project which is as follows:

“Project 5.822, Nash County: Grading, drainage and paving from the point of intersection of the common property line of Lovie Anne Joyner and J. B. Batts, et ux, with the southern right-of-way boundary of S.R. 1717, and running thence in a southeasterly direction, approximately 3,316 feet to a point in the property of J. M. Batts, with right of way as indicated upon the final plans for said project, the same being identified as Addendum 8 to the minutes of the June 6, 1963 State Highway Commission Meeting and are incorporated herein by reference.”

After the eighth project follows a description of four more projects. Then the excerpt from the minutes ends with these words:

“Be it Further Resolved that the Right-of-Way Department is directed to acquire the hereinabove described rights of way, construction easements and control of access and such rights of way, construction easements and control of access as heretofore acquired by the Right-of-Way Department in conformance with said final plans is hereby ratified, and the Attorney General is requested to institute on behalf of the Commission proceedings to acquire rights of way, construction easements and control of access upon determination by the Chief Right-of-Way Engineer and the Attorney [352] General that it is necessary that such proceedings be instituted to carry forward the right-of-way acquisition for said projects.”

Plaintiff further offered in evidence an excerpt from the minutes of the State Highway Commission meeting held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on 1 August 1963 with seventeen members present. This excerpt from the minutes shows the following:

“Acting on the recommendation of Secondary Roads Director Roney, the following additions, deletions, and a correction to a previously approved addition, all pertaining to the Secondary Road System, were approved on a motion made by Commissioner Tate, seconded by Commissioner Elliott, and unanimously carried: “ADDITIONS:
“County and Petition Length Description, Date
Number (Miles) of Report ”

Then follows a list of 77 Additions from many counties, and in this list the following:

“Nash 6532 0.60 Batts Rd., 7-8-63”

Plaintiff also offered in evidence an affidavit of Donald Thomas Overman to this effect: He is now employed by the State Highway Commission as Safety and Emergency Planning Engineer, and that prior to 13 July 1963 he was District Engineer, Division 4, District 2, which embraces Nash County. He is familiar with Secondary Road 1768, Nash County, known locally as the Batts Road. Prior to 13 July 1963, and particularly on 6 June 1963, this road existed as an unimproved farm road. That said road as relocated and reconstructed by the State Highway Commission will serve at least five different property owners and four dwellings, and is on the State highway system, and when completed will be open to the general public.

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

State Highway Commission v. Batts, 144 S.E.2d 126, 265 N.C. 346, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 986 (N.C. 1965).

144 S.E.2d 126 (State Highway Commission v. Batts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Town of Apex v. Rubin
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2025
Town of Apex v. Rubin
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2021
Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes
809 S.E.2d 853 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2018)
Gange v. Gov Guam
Superior Court of Guam, 2012
Catawba County v. Wyant
677 S.E.2d 567 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Department of Transportation v. Overton
433 S.E.2d 471 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Baldwin v. GTE South, Inc.
428 S.E.2d 857 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Ferrell v. Department of Transportation
407 S.E.2d 601 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)
Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. McLeod
364 S.E.2d 399 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1988)
Clark v. Asheville Contracting Co., Inc.
342 S.E.2d 832 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
City of Statesville v. Roth
336 S.E.2d 142 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Pelham Realty Corp. v. Board of Transportation
279 S.E.2d 826 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Pelham Realty Corp. v. Board of Transportation
272 S.E.2d 777 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Centre Development Co. v. County of Wilson
261 S.E.2d 275 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Sport Shop, Inc. v. Churchwell
206 S.E.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Asheville School, Inc.
173 S.E.2d 909 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1970)
North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Asheville School, Inc.
169 S.E.2d 193 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
State Highway Commission v. Thornton
156 S.E.2d 248 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Vance County v. Royster
155 S.E.2d 790 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
State Highway Commission v. Batts
144 S.E.2d 126 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)