Quinn v. Anderson
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Public Highway—Dedication — Conclusion op Fact—Intention. — The dedication of a road as a public highway is a conclusion of fact to be drawn from all the circumstances of each particular case, and cannot be presumed without evidence of an unequivocal intention on the part of the owner to make the dedication.
Id. —Erection op Gates over Road. — The erection and maintenance of gates or other obstructions over a road is strong evidence in support of a mere license to the public to pass over it, and in rebuttal of its dedication to public use.
Id. —Evidence op Dedication. —Stronger evidence is required to establish the dedication of a neighborhood or timber road than of a thoroughfare,
. and in case of a county road than of a street in a town or city.
Id.—Action to Enjoin Obstructions—Damages—Findings—Immaterial Issue. —In an action to enjoin the obstruction by the defendants of an alleged public highway over their land, and to recover damages for past obstructions, the issue raised as, to the damages is immaterial, and no finding thereon is necessary if the court finds that the locus in quo belongs to the defendants, and never was a public highway.
Searls, C. This is an action to enjoin the'defend-, ants from obstructing a highway in the county of [455]Tuolumne, and to recover damages for obstructing the same.
Defendants had judgment, from which, and from an order denying a new trial, the plaintiff appeals.
The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the findings show: —
1. That in September, 1883, defendants-closed up that certain road leading from the county road known as the Sonora and Montezuma road, through the lands of the defendants to the ranch of the plaintiff.
2. That plaintiff had been accustomed to travel said road during the summer season for some ten years, and that persons having business with the plaintiff occasionally traveled the same in going to his ranch.
3. That said road was traveled by the public generally from 1850 to 1858, but for a period of twenty-seven years last past has been abandoned by the public as a highway; that said road was never dedicated to or accepted by the public as a highway, and was never marked off or declared a highway.
4. That plaintiff has a good road leading through his own lands to the county road, which causes him to travel some two miles farther to market.
The conclusions are, that the road in question is neither a public nor private highway, and that plaintiff has suffered no damage by reason of defendants’ acts in obstructing the road.
Public highways in this state “ are roads, streets, alleys, lanes, courts, places, trails, and bridges laid out or erected as such by the public, or if laid out or erected by others dedicated or abandoned to the public, or made such in actions for the partition of real property.” (Pol. Code, sec. 2618.)
It is not shown by the record that the road in question was ever laid out or erected by the public as a highway.
Was it ever dedicated or abandoned to the public as such highway ?
[456]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)