Rudolph v. Ackerman

Smith, Wilmot M., J.

Both parties concede that the plaintiff cannot succeed in this action unless he proves that a portion of defendant’s store is built upon the public highway. Two questions have been most elaborately and ably discussed by counsel. First, did the premises in controversy ever become a part of the public highway? and, second, if so, has such part ceased to become a highway by reason of abandonment or nonuser? It is.not necessary to consider the second question discussed because I am convinced after a careful consideration of the case that no part of the premises built *699upon by…