People v. Eel River & Eureka Railroad
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Dedication of Highway—Conflicting Evidence. — Where the evidence is conflicting, the finding of the trial court that the land in controversy was dedicated as a public highway by the defendant, and that the public accepted such dedication, will not be disturbed upon appeal.
Id.—Placing of Gates across Road—Intention to Dedicate.—Although the placing of a gate across a road which has been used by the public as a highway may be evidence of an intention not to dedicate the road to public use, yet it is not conclusive, and is not inconsistent with an intention so to dedicate it; and the fact that the gate was left open during the day and only closed at night, for the purpose of preventing injury to those who used it, or of preventing the public from driving upon the property of the party who constructed and opened the road, is consistent with a dedication.
Id. —Permissive User Where it appeared that the road had been used by the public as a highway for several years prior to the placing of the gate across the road, the placing of the gate across the road would not indicate a permissive user.
Id—Dedication by Corporation —Testimony of Directors.—Testimony of the directors of a corporation defendant, which had constructed a road upon its land, that it was the intention of the corporation at the time of the construction of the road to make it a public road, and that the land was purchased for that purpose, is admissible in an action to have it declared a public highway, to show that it was the intention of the defendant to dedicate the land as a highway when it constructed the same; and it was not necessary that a formal resolution of the intention of the corporation should have been entered upon its minutes.
Id.—Dedication by Railroad Corporation not Ultra Vires. —The act of a railroad corporation in dedicating a portion of its land as a highway for the public is not ultra vires.
Id.—Unauthorized Agreement of Directors—Ratification by Corporation.— The fact that the resolution of a corporation authorizing the purchase of property only authorized the directors to purchase the land, does not of itself impair an agreement that the directors made with the grantor that it should be used for a public highway, if the corporation subsequently approved such agreement and ratified their action.
Id.—Evidence of Intention of Corporation.— Evidence upon the part of the parties seeking to have the road declared a public highway, to the effect that when the representatives of the corporation were negotiating with the grantor of the land for the purchase thereof it was agreed between them that it should be used for a public highway, is admissible as tending to show the intention of the corporation to dedicate the road which it should construct upon the land conveyed.
Harrison, J. Plaintiff seeks by this action a judgment that a certain strip of land, sixty feet in width by fifteen hundred feet' in length, extending from the defendant’s station at Field’s Landing, in Humboldt County, to the county road, is a public highway, and to compel the removal of certain obstructions thereon. Judgment was rendered in its favor, and the defendant has appealed.
In November, 1882, the land in question was owned by one Waterman Field, and was by him conveyed to the defendant. Field was also the owner of a tract of land which the defendant purchased from him for its use as a station, and this strip of land, extending from the main tract of land to the county road, was included in the same conveyance. In the early part of 1883, the defendant constructed a road over this strip of land, opening into the county road at one extremity, and connecting at the other extremity with the other tract of land, and this road was thereafter used by the public as a highway without interruption until 1887, when the defendant erected a gate near the western end of the road, to prevent driving onto its wharf in the night. This gate was left open during the daytime, but [669]was closed at night. In 1890 the defendant built a warehouse directly across the road near its station, and placed a permanent gate at the extremity near the county road, which it kept securely locked, and thereupon this action was brought. The court found that in July, 1883, the defendant dedicated this strip of land for the use of the public as a public highway, and that the public accepted such dedication by user, and had used the same as a highway continuously from that time until its obstruction by the defendant in 1890.
There is ample evidence in the record in support of these findings, and although there is also much contrary evidence, yet as it was the function of the trial court to determine what consideration it should receive both in weight and character, we must accept its conclusion as determinative of the issue. That the road had been used by the public without interruption from the time of its construction in 1883 until the gate was erected in 1887 was not seriously controverted by the defendant, and there was testimony before the court to the effect that this gate was not placed there to prevent the public from using the road as a highway, but as a protection against danger in its úse. While the placing of a gate across a road may be evidence of an intention not to dedicate the road to public use, yet it is not conclusive, and the act itself is consistent with an intention to dedicate the road as a public highway. The fact that the gate was left open during the day, and only closed at night for the purpose of preventing injury to those who used it, or of preventing the public from driving upon the defendant’s wharf, is not inconsistent with its dedication to the public. So, too, the inference that the placing of the gates across the road evidenced a permissive user is impaired by the fact that such use had been uninterrupted for several years prior thereto. If the road was dedicated when it was first opened in 1883, such dedication could not be revoked in 1887 by placing gates across it.
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)