Good v. City of Roanoke
Good v. City of Roanoke
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The city of Roanoke, desiring to erect a fill and over
Among the facts stated in the petition are these:
“The city of Roanoke proposes to erect a fill and viaduct on Jefferson street, S., beginning on the north side of the Virginian Railway Company’s right of way and extending across said right of way and tracks to a point on the south side of said right of way, as shown by the plat and profile or map as Exhibit No. 1 with the petition in this cause, a copy of which is attached to the transcript. The property of the appellant, D. Sayler Good, lies at the northeast corner of Jefferson street and Green avenue (now called Woods avenue), and .is shown on said plat as parcel No. 2. This lot fronts fifty feet on Jefferson street and extends easterly along Green avenue one hundred feet to an alley, on which alley is a joint switch connecting the Virginian Railway Company’s tracks on the north and the Norfolk and Western Railway Company’s track on the south, known as the Roanoke & Southern Division of the Norfolk & Western Railway Company.
“After the proposed fill and viaduct are built, the only access to D. S. Good’s property will be from Jefferson street, as the railway siding on the alley in the rear prevents the use of said alley, and Green avenue is left 12.5 feet below the fill on the north, and 9.3 feet on the south side thereof, making it impossible to use this avenue unless a ramp is built by D. S. Good and the owner of the abutting property on the south side of Green avenue.
“On the lot owned by Simpson, Basham and Yeatts is a one-story frame store building, fronting fifty feet on Jefferson street and running westerly one hundred feet, the southerly side of said building being about fifteen feet north of the southerly line of their property and thus leaving a strip ten feet on the north side of
The instant ease and the case of Frank Hannah and J. R. Nichols v. City of Roanoke, ante, page 554, 139 S. E. 303, decided today, are companion cases. They were heard together in this court, and it was agreed at the bar of the court that the two eases involve the same questions of law, but contended that the evidence is slightly different.
A careful examination of the evidence in the instant case discloses nothing which entitles petitioners to a reversal of the judgment upon the facts.
We are of the opinion that the decision of the court in Hannah & Nichols v. City of Roanoke, supra, is controlling in this case. For the reasons stated in that case, the judgment complained of- will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- D. Sayler Good, C. M. Simpson, J. W. Basham and O. J. Yeatts v. City of Roanoke
- Status
- Published