State ex rel. Road Commission v. Hooper

First, the two points on appeal were to the effect that 1) the state tortiously violated appellant’s property rights and 2) made it impossible to reach its east bank of the canal because of the condemnation.

There is no evidence of mala fides on the part of the state whatever, so that the first point has no merit. As to the second point, without dispute, appellant’s director testified that by traveling I1/2 miles further each way, its company had access to the east bank of its canal, — hence this point on appeal also is without merit. A third point raised in the main opinion for the first…