Leaksville Cotton Mills v. Commissioners of Rockingham County

Stacy, J., after stating the case: The general authority of the commissioners of a county to condemn land for road purposes is found in 0. S., 3667. The plaintiff in the instant case had knowledge of the order directing the contractor to take the five feet of land in question, as its agent, 0. E. Mclver, was present at the meeting of the board on 5 December, 1921. The building of the-road, in violation of this decision of the board of county commissioners, has been properly arrested. Woolen Mills v. Land Co., 183 N. C., 511. The judgment of the commissioners, with respect to the location and construction of the instant road, and particularly the determination of the board to take the land of the Leaksville Cotton Mills rather than close the only driveway or outlet to the property of the Leaksville Woolen Mills, will not be reviewed by the courts, unless bad faith or a manifest abuse of discretion has been established, or unless it is clearly made to appear that the commissioners have acted, not in the interest of the public, but in promotion of some personal or private end. Edwards v. Comrs., 170 N. C., 451, and cases there cited. True, the complaint alleges that several members of the board of commissioners are acting solely in the interest of the Leaksville Woolen Mills, but this is specifically denied by the individual members of the .board, and the record is wanting in any sufficient evidence to support the *230 charge. The chairman of the board, who took Mclver’s view of these matters in the case of Woolen Mills v. Land Co., supra, is now acting in entire accord with the other members of the board in the present controversy. The above general propositions are not controverted by the plaintiff, but it says the defendants are now proceeding in violation of their contract to locate the road “as per specifications of the county engineer.” It is alleged that the location, as originally proposed, had been surveyed and staked out by the engineer at the time of the signing of the contract, and that such became a part of the inducement and consideration for its execution. This is denied by each and every member of the board of commissioners. They say there was no agreement for any particular location of the road, and that nothing was said in the negotiations pointing to this end. But it is further alleged that the county engineer and C. R. Mclver, prior to the execution of the contract with the commissioners, had an understanding as to the precise location of the road. This was not known to the commissioners, and it is denied that the county engineer was authorized to enter into any such agreement on behalf of the county or the commissioners. Upon the record, plaintiff has failed to make out a case calling for injunctive relief; and we think the judgment dissolving the temporary restraining order should be upheld. Affirmed.