Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co. v. Woolard
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Polk Circuit Court. — Hon. Argus Cox, Judge. (1) The road was undoubtedly left open originally by the owners of the land as a private way for their own convenience, and the mere fact that it was made use of by the people of the neighborhood without objection does not operate as a dedication to public use, or convert it in any legal sense into a public highway, and thus lay upon the road overseers the duty of keeping it in repair.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Polk Circuit Court. — Hon. Argus Cox, Judge. (1) The road was undoubtedly left open originally by the owners of the land as a private way for their own convenience, and the mere fact that it was made use of by the people of the neighborhood without objection does not operate as a dedication to public use, or convert it in any legal sense into a public highway, and thus lay upon the road overseers the duty of keeping it in repair. Elliott, Streets and Roads, p. 3; Stacey v. Miller, 14 Mo. 478; Brinek v. Collier, 56 Mo. 160; Baker v. Vanderberg, 99 Mo. 378; State ■ v. Guernsey,…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This is a proceeding invoking the injunctive process of the circuit court to restrain the defendant as road overseer from interfering with and tearing down the fences inclosing the right of way of the defendant railroad corporation. There was a trial in the court below resulting unfavorably to plaintiff.
The case as appears from the record is about like this. A lane or passage way between two adjoining landed proprietors had been left open by them for their own convenience. A neighborhood road passed east and west through this lane, which had been traveled by persons having occasion to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. WellsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Crow v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- State v. CulverSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Coberly v. ButlerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- State v. MacyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896