Hawkins v. Smith County
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01117-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-24-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Public road - Implied dedication Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2004 Appealed from: SMITH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: GRANT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST ANCE HAWKINS Case Number: 2004-67 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ANCE HAWKINS |
PAUL E. ROGERS
|
||
| Appellee: | SMITH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI | STANLEY A. SOREY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Public road - Implied dedication |
| Summary of the Facts: | Smith County obtained a permanent injunction against Ance Hawkins to prevent him from placing any object along or across Smith County Road 12. Hawkins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hawkins argues that the injunction was erroneously ordered because the road in question was not a public road or the width of the road after the improvements were made exceeded the county’s rights. The land on which the road is situated (at least half of the road) is in fact land that is owned by Hawkins. A private road may become a public road by dedication. There are two types of dedication, express and implied. The evidence does not support a conclusion that Hawkins made an express dedication of the road for public use. While Hawkins did state that he would let the county have eight to ten feet of his property, it was merely contingent on a similar grant from his neighbors. However, there was evidence to support a finding of an implied dedication. According to Hawkins’ own testimony, the road had been used by the public for over fifty years. There was no evidence to suggest that any person was ever precluded from using the road. Over the course of fifty years, the intention of the road was to allow the public easy access along the road. By the time Hawkins objected, the county had already shown its acceptance when it replaced a broken culvert, hauled in dirt to build the road up, and paved the road. Hawkins also argues that the County, while paving the road, expanded the road beyond the old roadbed, which was a public road. Hawkins is correct that the road cannot be enlarged past its established width. However, the road was widened only on the north side of the road. Hawkins’ property lies only to the south of the road. Thus, the court did not err in granting the permanent injunction preventing Hawkins from interfering with the public travelers using the road. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
