Rowland v. Bangs
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for removing two rails placed by the plaintiff across Crossett Avenue, so called, leading from Main Street on the west to Willow Street on the east, in Springfield. At the trial in the superior court, before Fose, J., it was admitted that in 1834 George Bliss and others were the owners of a tract, including the whole of Crossett Avenue and the land adjoining it on both sides.
Read the full summary
Tort for removing two rails placed by the plaintiff across Crossett Avenue, so called, leading from Main Street on the west to Willow Street on the east, in Springfield. At the trial in the superior court, before Fose, J., it was admitted that in 1834 George Bliss and others were the owners of a tract, including the whole of Crossett Avenue and the land adjoining it on both sides. The plaintiff put in evidence a deed from said Bliss and others to Robert Crossett, dated December 11,1834, conveying all the land owned- by the grantors on the northerly side of Crossett Avenue, and all that .part…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
The plaintiff is entitled to maintain his action unless it is made to appear either that “ Crossett Avenue ” had become a public highway; or that the defendant had acquired a private easement, or right to use the avenue as a way, either personal to himself,- or appurtenant to his land.
1. It had not become a public highway by dedication, because it had never been laid out and established in accordance with the requirements of St. 1846, c. 203; and previously to 1846 it had not the character of a thoroughfare, and there was no evi*303dence to show that it was intended as such, or was assented to by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hayden v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Greene v. CannyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Cahill v. LaytonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Longley v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939