Meservey v. Gulliford
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe District Court of Sixth Judicial District for Fremont County. Hon. J. M. Stevens, Judge. Action by road overseer to remove an obstruction in a public highway alleged to have been established by prescription. Judgment for plaintiff. “The words ‘duly laid out or erected’ have reference to the formal or official action, which the law enjoins upon those charged with the duty of establishing public highways.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe District Court of Sixth Judicial District for Fremont County. Hon. J. M. Stevens, Judge. Action by road overseer to remove an obstruction in a public highway alleged to have been established by prescription. Judgment for plaintiff. “The words ‘duly laid out or erected’ have reference to the formal or official action, which the law enjoins upon those charged with the duty of establishing public highways.” (Freshour v.-Sihn, 99 Cal. 443, 34 Pac. 87.) “The statute, fixing a penalty for encroachment upon highways, applies only to those laid out as provided by law, and not to those…
1Concurrence
STEWART, X,
Concurring Specially. — I concur with the majority opinion that this case should be reversed. I am •unable, however, to agree with the majority opinion, holding that the plaintiff, as road overseer, can maintain this action. -Justice Sullivan, in the principal opinion, seems to hold that the plaintiff has a right to maintain this action by reason of the fact that under the provisions of sec. 873 of the Rev. Stat. (as amended by Sess. Laws, 1899, p. 128), the road -overseer, under the direction of the board of commissioners, •takes charge of all public highways of his district, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re FarrellMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Freshour v. HihnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Smith v. TalbotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888