Lyng

Miocene Ditch Co. v. Lyng

Good Law
138 F. 544·2 Alaska Fed. 445·70 C.C.A. 458·1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 3803
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 29, 1905No. 1,135California1,835 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Morrow, J.

(after stating the facts).

There is no question but that the court was correct in sus *448 taining the second ground of demurrer. The right of eminent domain can only be exercised in behalf of a public use authorized by law, and in the taking of property necessary to such public use the complaint or petition in such proceedings must show plainly and affirmatively the existence of the statutory authority for the public use, and the necessity of the property for such use. Fork Ridge Baptist Cemetery Ass’n v. Redd, 33 W.Va. 262 , 10 S.E. 405, 406 . Lewis on Eminent Domain, par. 353, states the law on the subject as follows: “The petition should show the use or purpose for which the property is desired, and that it is within the statutory powers conferred. It should show a clear right to condemn the property described. Accordingly it must not only show that the property is wanted for a public use, but also that it is the use within the particular statute under which the proceedings are had.”

The amended complaint nowhere alleges that the right of way sought to be condemned is necessary for a public use. It is alleged that Dexter creek from its source to its mouth contains large…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.