Summary
Strickland sued village street commissioners for trespass after their excavation of gravel within the platted lines of George Street removed lateral support from her adjoining property, causing a fence and part of the land to collapse. The court held that public authorities could not remove lateral support without clearly accepting the street dedication and that trespass was a proper form of action because the injury was immediate and directly caused by intentional acts. The judgment for Strickland was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether village authorities could enter the area of a platted but unopened street and remove lateral support from adjacent land without clearly accepting the dedication or otherwise having authority to make the excavation.
- Whether the evidence supported an action of trespass rather than requiring an action on the case when excavation immediately and necessarily caused the plaintiff's land and improvements to fall.
Holdings
- Public authorities may not, without distinctly evincing an intent to accept a proposed street dedication, enter the area of a platted but unopened street and remove the lateral support of adjacent land to the owners' injury.
- Trespass is an appropriate remedy where an intentional excavation immediately and necessarily causes neighboring land and improvements to fall through removal of lateral support, even though the defendants did not physically enter the plaintiff's premises.
Key quotations
“And we are all of opinion that they have no such right.” (391-392)
“They fell at once, as the result of acts intentionally done, and not subsequently as a consequence of negligent conduct.” (392)
Factual background
Strickland owned and occupied a dwelling lot in block 37 of the village of Fenton, adjacent to George Street as shown on a plat recorded in 1837. Although George Street had been opened and used elsewhere, it had never been opened or used as a public highway along Strickland's property, which stood approximately forty feet above the avenue. In 1878, village street commissioners excavated gravel within the platted street for use elsewhere in the village, digging close enough to Strickland's boundary that her fence fell and the adjoining earth, potatoes, and other property caved into the excavation.
Procedural history
Strickland sued Buskirk and Rudolph in trespass after village street commissioners excavated gravel within the lines of a platted but unopened street, causing her fence and adjoining land to collapse. The defendants challenged the public right to use the street and argued that the action should have been brought in case rather than trespass. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments and affirmed the judgment with costs.