# Marshall v. . Hastings

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · November 7, 1917 · 174 N.C. 480

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3670276

## Case

- **Full name:** JOSEPH W. MARSHALL v. R. L. HASTINGS Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 7, 1917
- **Citations:** 174 N.C. 480; 93 S.E. 977; 1917 N.C. LEXIS 125
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by BbowN
- **Judges:** BbowN
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3670276

## Opinion text

BbowN, J.
This action is brought to recover damages against the defendants individually and personally for injuries suffered by plaintiff by reason of the construction of a. public road through his lands.
It appears from the report of the referee that the defendants were the legally elected and qualified Board of Road Commissioners for the county of Forsyth under chapter 20 of the Public Laws of North Carolina of 1907, and as such board were authorized and empowered by law to take the plaintiff’s land and to construct the road through his farm. It further appears that the route through plaintiff’s farm was adopted and the land appropriated for the public road at a regular meeting of the Board of Road Commissioners. That constituted a legal condemnation and appropriation of the land for a public purpose.
S. v. Jones,
39 N. C., 614 .
*481
There is no finding or evidence whatever that defendants acted in excess of the authority conferred by the statute. The statute creating the board and conferring upon it powers of eminent domain provides an adequate remedy for compensation for all injuries sustained by landowners whose property is. taken and provides a method of procedure. It is plaintiff’s fault that he has not pursued the remedy provided by the statute.
It is manifest that under well-settled principles of law defendants are not personally liable, and that this action was properly dismissed.
Fore v. Feimster,
171 N. C., 551 ;
Hipp v. Farrell,
173 N. C., 91 , S. E., 831;
Templeton v. Heard,
159 N. C., 63 .
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3670276. Public record. Not legal advice.