Dunning v. Matthews
Illinois Supreme Court
It was admitted by the parties, that the road mentioned in the pleas filed by defendants, is laid out upon the close mentioned in the declaration, but plaintiff denies that the road was legally laid out. The defendants admitted that they entered said close where they claim said road to be, and threw down a fence.
Read the full summary
It was admitted by the parties, that the road mentioned in the pleas filed by defendants, is laid out upon the close mentioned in the declaration, but plaintiff denies that the road was legally laid out. The defendants admitted that they entered said close where they claim said road to be, and threw down a fence. The defendants then offered in evidence, certified copies of the records and papers in the office of the clerk of the town of Big Eock, Kane county, showing (as they claim,) that the road in question, was duly and legally laid out and opened. The plaintiff objected to the admission…
1Opinion of the Court
Catón, J.
The cases are alike, and present precisely the same questions. Matthews sued Dunning and others for trespass, in breaking and entering his close. The defense set up was, that the locus in quo was a public highway, and that Dunning, as overseer of highways, and the other defendants, as his servants, entered the premises for the purpose of opening and working -the same, as such highway.
In order to determine the questions here presented, it is necessary to examine the law authorizing the laying out of new roads. That is found in the 24th article of the township organization law of 1849.
T…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Comstock v. GageIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
- Norton v. StudleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1856