Scruggs v. Town of Sweetwater

2 Citing cases

  1. Zirkle v. City of Kingston

    217 Tenn. 210 (Tenn. 1965)   Cited 28 times
    In Zirkle v. City of Kingston, 217 Tenn. 210, 396 S.W.2d 356, 360-62 (1965), the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that a municipality could take control of private water and sewer lines on annexed property notwithstanding the fact that the municipality had not paid just compensation to the owner of the lines prior to taking control of them.

    It has been held repeatedly in this State that unless the legal remedy, that is the remedy at law, is inadequate, a property owner's cause of action in a condemnation situation is exclusively in the law court as opposed to a court of equity. Fritts v. Leech, 201 Tenn. 18, 296 S.W.2d 834 (1956); Hombra v. Smith, 159 Tenn. 308, 17 S.W.2d 921 (1929); Armstrong v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 153 Tenn. 283, 282 S.W. 382 (1926); Tennessee, Coal, Iron R.R. Co. v. Paint Rock Flume Transp. Co., 128 Tenn. 277, 160 S.W. 522 (1913); Doty v. American Tel. Tel. Co., 123 Tenn. 329, 130 S.W. 1053 (1910); Scruggs v. Town of Sweetwater, 29 Tenn. App. 357, 196 S.W.2d 717 (1949); Georgia Industrial Realty Co. v. City of Chattanooga, 163 Tenn. 435, 43 S.W.2d 490 (1931). An analysis of some of these cases may be helpful.

  2. Co. Hwy. Com., Rutherford Co. v. Smith

    61 Tenn. App. 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 9 times
    In Cty. Highway Comm'n of Rutherford Cty. v. Smith, 61 Tenn.App. 292, 454 S.W.2d 124 (1969), the Court addressed whether compliance with 23 U.S.C. ยง 128(a) was prerequisite to a condemnation petition.

    State Highway Commission v. Danielson, 146 Mont. 539, 409 P.2d 443 (1965), cited by respondent, does not comport with the prior holdings of our Tennessee Supreme Court, which forbids judicial invasion of the political prerogative of where and how to build a highway. Respondent cites Scruggs v. Town of Sweetwater, 29 Tenn. App. 357, 196 S.W.2d 717 (1946) wherein the complainants sought to enjoin a city from widening a street on the ground that one of the abutting property owners had conspired to contribute funds and solicit influence for the project to enhance the value of his own property. The chancellor dismissed the bill and this Court affirmed.