jects," although it is the right to travel upon a highway by all the world and not the exercise of the right which makes the way a highway.73 Its character is not determined by the number of persons who actually use it for passage; if it is open, it is immaterial that but few individuals are in a position to make use of it,75 or that one person is most benefited by it;70 and its character as a highway is not affected even by the fact that it furnishes access or egress to but a single property owner.77 The term "public highway" is a tautological expression,78 since a highway is a passage, road, or street, which every citizen has a right to use, and is therefore necessarily public.80 79 Practical passage.81 The word "highway" im 25 LRA 640. 82 ports a practicable passage.8 It is a contradiction in terms to speak of an impassable highway.83 However, the size of the way is immaterial.84 Whether the term "highway" may properly be applied to a mere cul de sac is a question on which the authorities differ.85 The mode of its creation 86 does not of itself determine its character. 87-92 The ownership of a highway 93 is immaterial in determining its character as such;94 in legal contemplation it may be a highway, whether it is one owned by a private corporation or one owned by the government,9 96 or a governmental corporation.97 Nature.98 A highway is regarded as an ease Co., 143 N. Y. 133, 140, 38 NE 202, 78. Walton v. St. Louis, etc., R. [d] Ways of necessity are not public highways. U. S. v. Rindge, 208 Fed. 611, 618. 72. Southern R. Co. v. Combs, 124 Ga. 1004, 1006, 53 SE 508; Davis v. New York, 14 N. Y. 506, 67 AmD 186 [rev 9 N. Y. Super. 663, 12 NYLeg Obs 17]; Liekens v. Staten Island Midland R. Co., 64 App. Div. 327, 329, 72 NYS 162. [a] "The king's highway' is defined in English law to be a public passage for the king and his subjects, and from thence its name is derived; and the test whether a road is entitled to that designation is to inquire whether it be common to all the people." Davis v. New York, 14 N. Y. 506, 515, 87 AmD 186. 73. In re New York, 135 N. Y. 253, 260, 31 NE 1043, 31 AmSR 825; Tise V. Whitaker-Harvey Co., 144 N. C. 507, 57 SE 210, 211; Public Utilities Commn. v. Jones, 54 Utah 111, 179 P 745, 746. [a] "A public highway." St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 41 Okl. 163, 165, 137 P 714. 74. Tise v. Whitaker-Harvey Co., 144 N. C. 507, 57 SE 210, 211. 75. Ind. Washington Ice Co. v. Lay, 103 Ind. 48, 2 NE 222. Iowa. Bankhead V. Brown. Iowa 540. 25 Kan.-Johnson County v. Minnear, 72 Kan. 326, 83 P 828, 829 (recognizing rule). N. H.-Proctor v. Andover, 42 N. N. C.-Tise V. Whitaker-Harvey Tex.-Decker V. Menard County, (Civ. A.) 25 SW 727. See also Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Baudat, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 236, 241. 51 SW 541. [a] "Public highway."-Small v. Binford, 41 Ind. A. 440, 83 NE 507, 510, 84 NE 19. 76. Galveston, etc., R. Co. V. Baudat, 18 Tex. Civ. A. 595, 600, 45 SW 939. 77. Southern R. Co. v. Combs, 124 Ga. 1004, 53 SE 508; Pagels v. Oaks, 64 Iowa 198, 19 NW 905; Johnson v. Clayton County, 61 Iowa 89, 15 NW 856; Lewis v. Washington, 5 Gratt. (46 Va.) 265; Lazzell v. Garlow, 44 W. Va. 466, 30 SE 171; Varner v. Martin, 21 W. Va. 534. But see Richards v. Wolf, 82 Iowa 358, 47 NW 1044, 31 AmSR 501 (where the object of a proposed highway was to make an outlet for a property owner who had already access to one highway, it was held that the second way must be considered as a private way and not a highway). 95 [g] A way to the encumbrance of which any person may set up a defensible claim or right is not a "public highway." It follows of necessity that such a claim or right cannot ripen into title as against the public by mere lapse of time or long continued assertion. Lacy v. Oskaloosa, 143 Iowa 704, 121 NW 542, 545, 31 LRANS 853. 79. See supra text and notes 12, 71. 80. Walton v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 67 Mo. 56, 58; Jenkins v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 27 Mo. A. 578, 583. 81. Adaptability to public use as element in establishment by prescription see infra § 5. 82. Manigault v. Ward, 123 Fed. 707, 713 [aff 199 U. S. 473, 26 SCt 127, 50 L. ed. 274]; Armstrong v. St. Louis, 3 Mo. A. 151, 157; Grand Trunk Pac. R. Co. v. Vincent, 2 Alta. L. 393, 403. See Peo. v. Kingman, "To be a public highway, it must have a terminus, a quo the public can enter it, and a terminus ad quem they can leave it." Manigault v. Ward, supra. [a] "Where the place is closed at both ends there can be no doubt that there can not be a highway." Grand Trunk Pac. R. Co. v. Vincent, 2 Alta. L. 393, 403. [b] "Public highway" defined.- [c] "The terms 'public highway' [d] "A public highway,' as contradistinguished from private highway, is one under the control and kept by the public; dedicated for that purpose by the owner; used by the public for 20 years, or, established in a regular proceeding for that purpose." Dunn v. Gunn, 149 Ala. 583, 593, 42 S 686. 83. Armstrong v. St. Louis, 3 Mo. A. 151, 157. 84. Tise v. Whitaker-Harvey Co., 144 N. C. 507, 57 SE 210, 211. 85. See Cul de sac 17 C. J. p 391 note 74 [a]. See also infra § 5. 86. Modes of establishing highways see infra §§ 2-197. 87-92. 1 Elliott Roads & Str. § 3 [quot Public Utilities Commn. V. Jones, 54 Utah 111, 179 P 745, 746]. [a] Limited by statute.-"Highways are only such as are laid out in the mode prescribed therefor by statute or as have been used as such for public travel thereon other than travel to and from a toll bridge or ferry for 20 years.' Pub. St. 1901 c 67 8 1 [quot O'Neil v. Walpole, 74 N. H. 197, 66 A 119, 120]. 93. Title to highways see infra § 257. 94. Public Utilities Commn. V. Jones, 54 Utah 111, 179 P 745, 746. 95. 1 Elliott Roads & Str. § 3 [quot Public Utilities Commn. V. Jones, 54 Utah 111, 179 P 745, 746]. [a] "A road does not cease to be a highway by being subjected to the control of a turnpike or plank road corporation, this being considered as a method of keeping it in pair, and of taxing the travel upon it for that purpose." Davis v. New York, 14 N. Y. 506, 516, 67 AmD 186. re 96. 1 Elliott Roads & Str. § 3 [quot Public Utilities Commn. V. Jones, 54 Utah 111, 179 P 745, 746]. [e] "A public highway, as distinguished from a private road, is one which is open to the travel of the public." St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 41 Okl. 163, 165, 137 P 714. [f] "Public highways' are arteries of communication and of intertraffic in the commodities of the country. The means to accomplish 97. 1 Elliott Roads & Str. § 3 these purposes change with the ad- [quot Public Utilities Commn. V. vance of civilization." State v. Jones, 54 Utah 111, 179 P 745, Kansas Natural Gas, etc., Co., 71 746]. Kan. 508, 509, 80 P 962, 114 AmSR 98. Title to highways and rights 507. thereon see infra §§ 257-267. ment 99 of perpetual character, and therefore a 99. Smith v. San Luis Obispo, 95 Cal. 463, 469, 30 P 591; Newton v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 72 Conn. 420, 44 A 813, 815; Peck v. Smith, 1 Conn. 103, 132, 6 AmD 216; Taylor V. Pierce, 174 Ill. 9, 11, 50 NE 1109; Crete v. Hewes, 168 Ill. 330, 332, 48 NE 36; Chaplin v. Highway Comrs., 126 Ill. 264. 271, 18 NE 765; Sweet v. Perkins, 115 App. Div. 784, 101 NYS 163, 165; Adams v. Rivers, 11 Barb. 390; Kelsey v. King, 32 HowPr (N. Y.) 39, 44; Whitbeck v. Cook, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 483, 490, 8 AmD 272; Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 447, 452, 8 AmD 263. [a] A highway taken by the power of eminent domain is merely a public way, the fee remaining in the landowner. Varney v. Manchester, 58 N. H. 430, 432, 40 AmR 592. 1. Taylor v. Pierce, 174 Ill. 9, 11, 50 NE 1109; Crete v. Hewes, 168 III. 330, 332, 48 NE 36; Chaplin v. Highway Comrs., 126 Il. 264, 271, 18 NE 765. 2. Taylor v. Pierce, 174 Ill. 9, 50 NE 1109; Crete v. Hewes, 168 Ill. 330, 332, 48 NE 36; Chaplin v. Highway Comrs., 126 Ill. 264, 271, 18 NE 765. 3. Cox v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 48 Ind. 178, 182. 4. Waterford V. Oxford County, 59 Me. 450, 452; Harding v. Medway, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 465, 469; Com. v. Newbury, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 51. 56; Com. v. Charleston, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 180, 188, 11 AmD 161. 5. Butcher's Slaughtering, etc., Assoc. v. Boston, 139 Mass. 290, 291, 30 NE 94; Denham v. Bristol County, 108 Mass. 202, 205; Flagg v. Flagg, 16 Gray (Mass.) 175, 179; Valentine v. Boston, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 75, 80, 33 AmD 711. [a] In New York under the colonial laws a country road was one which belonged to the country, and was under the direct charge of the country, as distinguished from the owners of the towns and manors; and it was a necessary line of communication between sparsely settled communities, and it was for the better laying out, repairing, and préserving the public and general highways within the colony that the legislation as to such roads was adopted. Townsend v. Brookhaven, 97 App. Div. 316, 327, 89 NYS 982. 6. Butchers' Slaughtering, etc., Assoc. v. Boston, 139 Mass. 290, 291, 30 NE 94; Denham v. Bristol County. 108 Mass. 202, 205; Flagg v. Flagg, 16 Gray (Mass.) 175, 179; Valentine v. Boston, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 75, 80, 33 AmD 711. And see Davis v. Smith, 130 Mass. 113. the term is used in a statute, its import is restricted to county roads or county ways, unless its connection should require some different construetion. In other jurisdictions, however, the term is given its ordinary meaning 10 unless it appears that the legislature used it in its narrower sense.11 Road.12 The word "road" applies generally to highways;13 a highway is a road, but a road is not necessarily a highway.14 Commonly in legal aceeptation the term "road" is regarded as synonymous with "highway." 15 In its broadest sense the term "road" is synonymous with "way," 16 although the latter word is more generic; 17 and thus applies to any place set apart and appropriated, either de jure or de facto, for the purpose of free passage, whether by public authority or by the general license or permission of the owners of the land,18 stone v. Worcester County, 108 Mass. Jordan, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 859. 8. Wells v. York County, 79 Me. 522, 528, 11 A 417; Waterford V. Oxford County, 59 Me. 450, 452; Cleaves v. Jordan, 34 Me. 9, 12. See Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. State, 71 Miss. 253, 14 S 459. 9. Cleaves v. Jordan, 34 Me. 9, 12. See Pent Roads [30 Cyc 1379]; 13. Stokes V. Scott County, 10 Iowa 166, 175 [quot Chamberlain v. Iowa Tel. Co., 119 Iowa 619, 93 NW 596, 598]; Kister v. Reeser, 98 Pa. 1, 4, 42 AmR 608. 14. Styles v. Victoria, 8 B. C. 406, 15. U. S.-Abbott v. Duluth. 104 Mo.-State v. Hackman, 270 Mo. 658, 669, 195 SW 706 [quot Cyc]. Nev. Chollar-Potosi Min. Co. V. Kennedy, 3 Nev. 361, 93 AmD 409. Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. V. Jordan, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 859. Va.--Terry v. McClung, 104 Va. 599, 602, 52 SE 355. [a] "Road" and "way" interchangeable. Phillips V. Connellsville, etc., R. Co., 247 Pa. 560, 93 A 603. 17. Kister v. Reeser, 98 Pa. 1, 4, 42 AmR 608. 18. Com. v. Gammons, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 201, 202; State v. Hackman, 270 Mo. 658, 669, 195 SW 706 [quot Cyc]; International, etc., R. Co. v. Jordan, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 859; Hart v. Red Cedar, 63 Wis. 634, 638, 24 NW 410. " [a] Other definitions.—(1) "A highway, hence any similar passage for travel public or private.' Century D. [quot Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. v. Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140, 154, 83 NW 527, 86 NW 69, 53 LRA 175]. (2) "An open way or public passage." Imperial D. [quot St. Vincent Tp. v. Greenfield, 12 Ont. 297, 305]. (3) "An open way or Ind. Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74. 76. public passage, as between one town, Iowa.-East Boyer Tel. Co. v. Vail, city, or place and another." Wor129 NW 298, 299; Newton v. Jasper cester D. [quot Best v. Birmingham, County, 135 Iowa 27, 112 NW 167. 16 Ala. A. 631, 632, 80 S 695; Os168, 124 AmSR 256; Nichols v. Chi-borne v. Mecklenburg County, 82 N. cago, etc., R. Co., 125 Iowa 236. 238, 100 NW 1115. Md.-Horner v. State, 49 Md. 277, 280. Mass.-Clark V. Hull. 184 Mass. Mo.-State v. Hackman, 270 Mo. C. 400, 402]. To like effect In re Sewer St., 8 Pa. Co. 226, 228. (4) "An open way or public passageground appropriated for public travel." Webster D. [quot Manchester v. Hartford, 30 Conn. 118, 120]. (5) "An open way or public passage; it is ground appropriated for travel, forming a communication between one city or town and another." Hutson v. New York, 7 N. Y. Super. 289, 312 [aff 9 N. Y. 163, 59 AmD 526]. (6) "A passage ground appropriated to public travel." 1 Elliott Roads & Str. pp 4, 5 [quot State y. Street, 117 Ala. 203, Nebr.-Peo. v. Buffalo County, 4208. 23 S 8071. (7) "A passage Nebr. 150. 158. through the country for the use of the people." Horner V. State, 49 Md. 277. 286 [cit Bouvier L. D.1. (8) "A public passage, open to all the people." Holthouse L. D.; Jacob L. D.; Tomlin L. D. [all quot Bailey v. Com., 78 Va. 19, 21]. (9) A “public thoroughfare." Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74, 76. (10) "A public way for passage or travel." Century D. [quot Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. V. Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140, 154. 83 NW 527, 86 NW 69, 53 LRA 175). (11) A "right of passage in the public." Leavitt v. Towle, 8 N. H. 96, N. H-Morgan v. Palmer, 48 N. H. 336, 337. N. J-Vantilburgh v. Shann, 24 N. J. L. 740. N. Y.-Brace v. New York Cent. Or. Heiple v. East Portland, 13 Pa. Phillips v. Connellsville, etc., R. Co., 247 Pa. 560, 93 A 603; Respublica V. Arnold, 3 Yeates 417, 421. 7. Wells v. York County, 79 Me. 522, 528, 11 A 417; Cleaves v. Jordan, 34 Me. 9. 12; Clark v. Hull, 184 Mass. 164, 166, 68 NE 60; Black- Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. com and also to private ways.19 It is now 31 and thus it may include alleys,25 bridges,26 bridle path,27 carriage ways, 28 driftways, 29 footpaths,30 footways, highways, 2 lanes,33 railroads,34 sidewalks,35 and streets.3 36 However, in a narrower sense the term may not include alleys,37 railroads,3 streets.39 The word "road," as used generally, is uniformly applied to public roads, 40 unless where 97. (12) "A strip of ground ap- 24. U. S.-Washington County v. [b] Necessity of actual user.-A "road" is a way actually used in passing from one place to another. A mere survey or location of a route for a road is not a road. Brooks v. Morrill, 92 Me. 172, 176, 42 A 357. 19. Jaquith v. Richardson, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 213, 215; State v. Hackman, 270 Mo. 658, 669, 195 SW 706 [quot Cyc]; Kister v. Reeser, 98 Pa. 1, 4, 42 AmR 608. 20. 1 Elliott Roads & Str. § 7 [quot Mushbaugh v. East Peoria, 260 I. 27, 31, 102 NE 1027]; In re Sewer St., 8 Pa. Co. 226, 228. V. Hull, 184 Mass. See Reg. v. Worthing, etc., Turnp. Road, 3 E. & B. 989, 77 ECL 989, 1006, 118 Reprint 1412. 25. U. S.-Abbott v. Duluth, 104 Iowa.-East Boyer Tel. Co. v. Vail, Minn. Northwestern Tel. Exch. Mo.-State v. Hackman, 270 Mo. And see Alley 2 C. J. p 1150. com "We do not mean to be understood as holding that a street is not, in one sense, a road, being a highway in a city or town for the pas-23, 33, 86 NW 657. sage of the public from one portion of a city, etc., to another portion of it. In this sense, it is a road in a city. . The words street and road are frequently used as synonymous expressions, and are used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. And yet they are [a] "Road" and "bridge" often employed to designate spe- pared.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Peo., cially what is commonly understood 200 111. 365, 65 NE 716. by each word, as it is generally separately applied. No one would 602, 52 SE 355. call a highway in the country a street, or in an application to lay out a highway in the country, would 28. International, etc., R. Co. v. ask to have a street laid out be- Jordan, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 859; tween one town or place and another Terry v. McClung, 104 Va. 599, 602, town or place. And the converse of 52 SE 355. And see Carriageway 9 this is true as indicating what is C. J. p 1295. commonly understood when the purpose is to lay out or establish a street in a city." In re Sewer St., supra. 27. Terry v. McClung, 104 Va. 599, "Bridle road" defined see 9 C. J. p 499. 38 Pa-Kister v. Reeser, 98 Pa. 1, 4, 42 AmR €08. Tex. International, etc., R. Co. v. Jordan, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 859; Wis.-State v. Sheboygen, 111 Wis. 23, 33, 86 NW 657. 34. Washington County V. Williams, 111 Fed. 801, 809, 49 CCA 621. 35. Manchester v. Hartford, 30 Conn. 118, 120. 36. U. S.-Abbott v. Duluth, 104 Fed. 833, 837 [aff 117 Fed. 137, 55 CCA 153]. Conn.-Manchester v. Hartford, 30' Conn, 118, 120. Iowa.-East Boyer Tel. Co. v. Vail, 129 NW 298; Chamberlain v. Iowa Tel. Co., 119 Iowa 619, 621, 93 NW 596; Stokes v. Scott County, 10 Iowa 166, 175; Dis. op. Dubuque County v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 4 Greene 1, 14, 15. Minn. Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. v. Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140, 154, 83 NW 527. 86 NW 69, 53 LRA 175. Mo.-State v. Hackman, 270 Mo. 658, 669, 195 SW 706 [quot Cyc]. Nebr.-Follmer v. Nuckolls County, 6 Nebr. 204. 209; Peo. V. Buffalo County, 4 Nebr. 150, 158. Pa.--Kister v. Reeser, 98 Pa. 1, 4, 42_AmR_608. Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. Jordan, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 859. Wis. State v. Sheboygen, 111 Wis. 23, 33, 86 NW 657. [a] "The term 'public road' is sufficient in its scope to include 'city street."'" State V. Hackman, 270 Mo. 658, 670, 195 SW 706. [b] "County road."-Chrisman v. Brandes, 137 Iowa 433, 112 NW 833, 29. Terry v. McClung, 104 Va. 835. 599, 602, 52 SE 355. 30. Derby County v. Urban Dist., [1896] A. C. 315. See Dennis v. Good, 83 J. P. 110. [a] In all the old acts the word "path" is used as synonymous with the word "road." Singleton v. Road Comrs., 11 S. C. L. 526, 527. 21. Griffin v. Sanborn, 127 Ga. 17, 56 SE 71; Southern R. Co. v. Combs, 124 Ga. 1004, 53 SE 508. See Chollar-Potosi Min. Co. v. Kennedy, 3 Nev. 361, 93 AmD 409. [a] Loose use of terms.-An ex- 31. International, etc., R. Co. v. amination of the authorities will Jordan, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 859; show that the terms "street," "ave- Terry v. McClung, 104 Va. 599. 602, nue," "road," "public road," "county52 SE 355. And See Kister v. Reeser, road," etc., are used loosely and in- 98 Pa. 1, 4, 42 AmR 608. discriminately in legislation and ju- 32. Conn.-Manchester V. Hartdicial decisions relating to public ford, 30 Conn. 118, 120. highways, and little reliance can be Iowa.-Chamberlain V. Iowa Tel. placed on the particular term used Co., 119 Iowa 619, 621, 93 NW 596; to describe any given way. Undoubt-Stokes v. Scott County, 10 Iowa 166, edly the term "street" or "avenue" 175; Dis. op. Dubuque County V. commonly applies to a public high- Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 4 Greene 1, way in a village, town, or city, and the term "road" to suburban highways. But there may be roads in a city or town and streets and avenues in the country. Murphy v. King County, 45 Wash. 587, 591, 88 P 14. Mo.-Statc v. Hackman, 270 Mo. 658, 669, 195 SW 706 [quot Cyc]. Nebr.-Follmer v. Nuckolls County, 6 Nebr. 204, 209; Peo. V. Buffalo County, 4 Nebr. 150, 158. Pa. Kister v. Reeser, 98 Pa. 1, 4, 1115. 23. Washington County V. Williams, 111 Fed. 801, 809, 49 CCA 621; Griffin v. Sanborn, 127 Ga. 17, 56 SE 71; Chamberlain v. Iowa Tel. Co., 119 Iowa 619, 621, 93 NW 596; Stokes V. Scott County, 10 Iowa 166, 175; State v. Hackman, 270 Mo. 658, 669, 195 SW 706 [quot Cyc]. [29 C. J.-24] Iowa.--Chamberlain V. Jowa Tel. Co., 119 Iowa 619, 623, 93 NW 596; Stokes v. Scott County. 10 Iowa 166, 175; Dis. op. Dubuque County v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., & Greene 1, 14, 15. Minn. - Northwestern Tel. Exch. [c] "Public road." Rodgers v. Bradshaw, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 735, 742. 37. Nebraska Tel. Co. v. Western Independent Long Distance Tel. Co., 86 Nebr. 772, 776, 95 NW 18. [a] "Public road." Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 3 Head (Tenn.) 596, 598. 38. State v. Wapello County, 13 Iowa 388. 39. Jefferson County v. State, 172 Ala. 138, 54 S 757 [quot Best v. Birmingham, 16 Ala. A. 631, 632]: Nebraska Tel. Co. v. Western Independent Long Distance Tel. Co., 68 Nebr. 772, 776, 95 NW 18; Carter v. Rahway, 55 N. J. L. 177, 178, 26 A 96 [aff 57 N. J. L. 196, 30 A 8631; In re Woolsey, 95 N. Y. 135, 138; Vanderkar v. Rensselaer, etc., R. Co., 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 390, 391. [a] Public road." Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 3 Head (Tenn.) 596, 598. the diminutive "private" is added thereto.41 Public road.42 A public road is a way established and adopted by proper authority for the use of the public, and over which every person has a right to pass, and to use for all purposes of travel or transportation to which it is adapted and devoted.43 Whether a road is public depends in a measure on the particular facts; thus it must, of physical necessity, be so situated and connected as to be accessible to the public;45 but it does not depend on its length,46 nor upon the place to which it leads, nor the number of people who use it;48 it is enough that the public have actual access to the road,49 whether by a mere neighborhood or settlement road,50 or by some established public highway.51 It is immaterial that one person may be most benefited by it.52 47 State road and county road. The terms "state road" and "county road" seem to have no precise technical meaning.53 In some statutes they are used merely to distinguish "highways" created directly by the legislature and those erected by the county authorities under general laws;54 but a better supported view is that any public road lying wholly within one county is a county road,55 while a state road extends through or into several counties.56 Other words or terms construed. Other words or terms relating to highways have received the construction of the courts, including "an act concerning highways," 57 "any state, county or township highway,'' 58 "five miles of highway," 59") "highway of Baltimore city,' "60"highways, established roads and ways, "61 "highways in a town," 62"laid cut, 963 laid out and established agreeably to law," 64"laying out," 05 "open public highway," "road de facto,' 99 67 street, avenue, or highway," 68 "territorial road," 09 "the order made' or 'the 1970 to open, authority granted,' "'71 and "turnout road.'' 72 II. ESTABLISHMENT [2] A. In General. A highway may be established either by prescription, user, or recognition,73 41. Phillips v. Connellsville, etc., R. Co., 247 Pa. 560, 564, 93 A 603. 42. See Private Roads [32 Cyc 366]. 43. Cincinnati R. Co. v. Com., 80 Ky. 137, 138. See also Morgan v. Livingston, 6 Mart. (La.) 19, 120; Newell v. Bassett, 33 N. J. L. 26, 28 ("any part of a highway"); Burke v. Jackson County Ct., 70 W. Va. 174, 73 SE 304, 305. must 66 74 by statute or statutory proceedings in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, or by dedication Minn. 445, 4 NW 1107. [e] "Public highway" and "public road" not synonymous.-Johnson v. State, 1 Ga. A. 195, 198, 58 SE 265. 44. Bradford V. Moseley, (Tex. Commn. A.) 223 SW 171, 173. 45. Trammell V. Bradford, 198 Ala. 513, 73 S 894; In re Schuykill River Road, 19 Pa. Super. 376, 377. [a] "Both termini of a road be in a public highway or [a] Other definitions.—(1) "A public place in order for the road to way through the State, or from be a public road." Fanning v. Strotown to town." Singleton v. Road man, 113 S. C. 495, 498, 101 SE 861. Comrs., 11 S. C. L. 526, 527. (2) "A 46. Bradford V. Moseley, (Tex. road dedicated to, and kept up by Commn. A.) 223 SW 171, 173; Deckthe public, as contra-distinguished er v. Menard County, (Tex. Civ. A.) from private ways or neighborhood 25 SW 727, 728. roads, which are not so kept up." Mills v. State, 20 Ala. 86, 88 [quot McDade v. State, 95 Ala. 28, 11 S 375, 376]. (3) A road open and public for the passage of every person without any toll or other imposition. Bradshaw V. Rodgers, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 103, 105. 47. Bradford V. Moseley, (Tex. Commn. A.) 223 SW 171, 173; Decker v. Menard County, (Tex. Civ. A.) 25 SW 727. 48. Bradford V. Moseley, (Tex. Commn. A.) 223 SW 171, 173; Decker v. Menard County, (Tex. Civ. A.) 25 SW 727. 49. Trammell V. Bradford, Ala. 513, 73 S 894, 895. 50. Trammell V. Bradford, Ala. 513, 73 S 894, 895. 198 198 Oh-State v. Wood County, 17 Oh. 184, 186. Pa-In re Penn Tp. Road, 66 Pa. 461. Wis. Jensen V. Polk County, 47 Wis. 298, 2 NW 320. "What is known in some sections as a state road is a highway laid out by the direct authority of the state, generally between distant places and through different counties, to supply a want felt by a large district of country, which because of the diversity of interests the local authorities are not always willing to supply." Cowley County v. Johnson, 76 Kan 65, 68, 30 P 805. [a] "Highway" equivalent to "state road."-Chamberlain ་ Towa Tel. Co., 119 Iowa 619, 621, 93 NW 596. 57. Findling v. Foster, 170 Ind. 325, 81 NE 480. 58. Houlton v. Carpenter, 29 Ind. A. 643, 64 NE 939, 940. 59. Peo. v. Selkirk, 180 N. Y. 401. 405, 73 NE 248 ("five miles of 198 highway' is but describing five miles of land held in the form of a road"). 51. Trammell V. Bradford, 60. Patapsco Electric Co. v. BalAla. 513, 73 S 894, 895. timore, 110 Md. 306, 72 A 1039, 1041. 52. Bradford V. Moseley. (Tex. 61. Goforth V. Southern R. Co., Commn. A.) 223 SW 171, 174; Gal-144 N. C. 569, 57 SE 209. veston, etc., R. Co. v. Baudat. 18 Tex. Civ. A. 595, 45 SW 939, 941. 53. Cowley County v. Johnson, 76 Kan. 65, 68, 30 P 805. 54. State v. Hayden, 32 Wis. 663, 673. 55. Cowley County v. Johnson, 76 Kan. 65, 68, 30 P 805; State v. Wood County, 17 Oh. 184, 186. [b] Restricted to rural highways. "Whatever may be the usage in other jurisdictions, we think it safe to say that in this state the term 'public roads' is commonly understood and recognized to apply exclusively to rural highways. It is thus understood and used by the people of the state generally, and it is doubtful whether, in the ordinary affairs of life and common conversation, it is ever used or understood to convey the idea of a street or alley of a city or village. This is a matter of common knowledge, and of which this court must take judicial notice. There is nothing in the act itself, nor in the legislative history of the state, that suggests that the legislature used the term in any other sense than that in which it is commonly used by the people of the state. The statutes of the state were before the legislature when the act was passed. In those relating to cities and villages the term 'public roads' never occurs, while in those relating to rural highways it is invariably used, save in some cases where the term 'highway' is used as its equivalent." Nebraska Mich. Davies v. Saginaw County, Tel. Co. V. Western Independent Long Distance Tel. Co., 68 Nebr. 772, 776, 95 NW, 18. [cl "Public path" synonymous.Singleton v. Road Comrs., 11 S. C. L. 526, 527. [a] "Highway" equivalent to "county road."-Chamberlain v. Iowa Tel. Co., 119 Iowa 619, 621, 93 NW 596. [b] In Quebec, where one side of a road runs along the boundary line between two local municipalities, although such road is wholly situated in one of them, it is a county road. Walsh v. St. Anicet Parish, 25 Que. Super. 319, 320. 56. Kan.-Topeka v. Russam, 30 Kan. 550, 2 P 669; State v. Shawnee County, 28 Kan. 431. 89 Mich. 295, 50 NW 862; Pearsall v. Eaton County, 74 Mich. 558, 42 NW 77, 4 LRA 193; Delta Lumber Co. v. Wayne County, 71 Mich. 572, 40 NW 1; Pearsall v. Eaton County, 71 Mich. 438, 39 NW 578; Davis v. On[d] "Public highway" and "pub- tonagon County, 64 Mich. 404. 31 NW lic road" equivalent.-District No. 1405; Peo. v. Ingham County, 20 Mich. Drain. Comrs. v. Cerro Gordo, 217 Ill. 95. 488, 75 NE 516. Minn.-State V. Macdonald, 26 62. Drew v. Cotton, 68 N. H. 22, 42 A 239, 240. 63. Heppes Co. v. Chicago, 260 Ill. 506, 512, 103 NE 455. €4. Morriss v. Cassaday, 78 Tex. 515, 518, 15 SW 102. 65. Heppes Co. v. Chicago, 260 Ill. 506, 512, 103 NE 455. 66. Bridgman v. Hardwick, 67 Vt. 132, 31 A 33, 34. 67. Locke v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 350. 68. In re New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 200 N. Y. 121, 93 NE 515. 69. State v. Hayden, 32 Wis. 663, 673. 70. Cowley County v. Johnson, 76 Kan. 65, 30 P 805. 71. Cowley County v. Johnson, 76 Kan. 65, 69, 30 P 805 ("The expression 'to open,' as applied to a street or road, is used almost indifferently to express two very different processes the act of establishing or creating a highway, and that of actually putting in shape for travel one already having a legal existence"). 72. 11 S 73. McDade v. State, 95 Ala. 28, 375. 376. See infra § 3. 74. Ala.-Thrasher v. Burr, 202 Ala. 307, 80 S 372; Bellview Cemetery Co. v. McEvers, 174 Ala. 457, 57 84 scription," in its strict sense, has no application to highways.83 By the better opinion, however, the doctrine of prescription, as applied to highways, is based on the presumption either of an antecedent exercise of the power of eminent domain by the proper authorities, or of a prior dedication of the land to public use,s 85 and as the principles governing the acquisition of public easement by user are substantially the same as those which govern the acquisition of private easements by prescription, highways acquired by long use are commonly spoken of as arising by prescription.86 However this may S 375; Cross v. State, 147 Ala. 125, | Establishment of street or alley by 41 S 875; Harper v. State, 109 Ala. prescription see Municipal Corpo66, 19 S 901. Ga-Southern R. Co. v. Combs. 124 Ga. 1004, 53 SE 508; Hines v. Swint, (A.) 102 SE 647; Hines v. Wilson, (A.) 102 SE 646; Hillside Cotton Mills v. Ellis, 23 Ga. A. 45, 97 SE 459: Davis v. State, 9 Ga. A. 430, 71 SE 603; Hutchinson v. State, 8 Ga. A. 684, 70 SE 63; Johnson v. State, 1 Ga. A. 195, 58 SE 265. Ill-Chicago v. Borden, 190 Ill. Miss.-Rylee v. State, 106 Miss. 123, 63 S 342. V. At N. H. -Northumberland lantic, etc., R. Co., 35 N. H. 574. N. Y.-Cohoes v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 134 N. Y. 397, 31 NE 887 [rev 54 Hun 558, 7 NYS 885]; Speir v. New Utrecht, 121 N. Y. 420, 24 NE 692 [mod 49 Hun 294. 2 NYS 426]; Peo. v. Mosier, 112 NYS 307. N. C.-Sexton v. Elizabeth City. 169 N. C. 385, 86 SE 344; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. C. 487, 55 AmR 619; Kennedy v. Williams, 87 N. C. 6. Tex-Porter v. Johnson, (Civ. A.) 151 SW 599. W. Va. Ryan V. Monongalia See 76. Ryan V. Monongalia County Ct., 86 W. Va. 40, 102 SE 731. also cases supra notes 73-75. rations [28 Cyc 835]. Mass. 407, 52 NE 514; Veale v. Boston, 135 Mass. 187; Fitchburg R. Co. V. Page, 131 Mass. 391; Com. V. User as evidence of: Coupe, 128 Mass. 63; Gould v. BosAcceptance of dedication see Dedi-ton, 120 Mass. 300; Jennings v. Tiscation §§ 75, 76. bury, 5 Gray 73; Com. v. Belding, 13 Metc. 10; Folger v. Worth, 19 Pick. 108; Sprague v. Waite, 17 Pick. 309; Stedman V. Southbridge, 17 Pick. 162; Reed v. Northfield, 13 Pick. 94. 23 AmD 662: Jones v. Percival, 5 Pick. 485. 16 AmD 415; Com. v. Low, 3 Pick. 408; Com. v. Newbury, 2 Pick. 51. Dedication see Dedication § 116. 81. State v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 45 Iowa 139; Riley v. Buchanan, 116 Ky. 625, 76 SW 527, 25 KyL 863, 63 LRA 642; Donahue v. New York, 112 N. Y. 142, 19 NE 419, 2 LRA 576; Clements v. West Troy, 10 HowPr (N. Y.) 199. 82. Ala.-Western R. Co. v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 11 S 483, 485, 17 LRA 474; Rosser V. Bunn, 66 Ala. 89. Ill. Thorworth v. Scheets, 269 Ill. Iowa.-State v. Kansas City, etc., Kan. Meade v. Topeka, 75 Kan. Ky-Riley v. Buchanan, 116 Ky. 625, 76 SW 527, 25 KyL 863, 63 LRA 642; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bailey, 109 SW 336, 33 KyL 179; Wright v. Willis, 63 SW 991. 23 KyL 565. 63. Me.-State v. Wilson, 42 Me. 9. N. J.-Prudden v. Lindsley, 29 N. N. Y.-Donahue v. New York, 112 N. J.-Ward v. Folly, 5 N. J. L, 566. N. H.-State v. Morse, 50 N. H. 9; Stevens V. Nashua, 46 N. H. 192; Webber v. Chapman, 42 N. H. 326, 80 AmD 111; In re Campton, 41 N. H. 197; Willey v. Portsmouth, 35 N. H. 303; Wallace v. Fletcher, 30 N. H. 434; Greeley v. Quimby, 22 N. H. 335; Barker v. Clark, 4 N. H. 380, 17 AmD 428. N. C.-Boyden v. Achenbach. 79 N. C. 539 [appr State v. Lucas, 124 N. C. 804, 32 SE 553]; State V. Marble, 26 N. C. 318. N. D.-Walcott Tp. v. Skauge, 6 N. D. 382, 71 NW 544. S. C.-Lawton v. Rivers, 13 S. C. L. 445, 13 AmD 741. See also dis. op. Sanders v. Southern R. Co., 97 S. C. 423, 81 SE 786. Tex.-Galveston. etc., R. Co. V. Baudat, 21 Tex. Civ. A. 236, 51 SW 541. Wis.-Randall V. Rovelstad, Wis. 410, 81 NW 819. 77. Ross V. Thompson, 78 Ind. ing that the fact that plaintiff, when Pa.-Diehl v. Chambersburg, etc., 105 Wyo. Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black, 89. S. C.-Smith v. Kinard, 20 S. C. feet for an alley, will not estop him L. 642 note. from claiming the strip, but is a Tenn.-Saunders V. Simpson, circumstance to be considered, in Tenn. 382, 37 SW 195. connection with other evidence, as Tex-Austin v. Hall, 93 Tex. 591, showing the acquiescence in the ap-57 SW 563: Porter v. Johnson, (Civ. propriation of the strip as a public A.) 151 SW 599; Evans v. Scott, 37 alley). Tex. Civ. A. 373, 83 SW 874. Nebr. Kendall-Smith Co. v. LanPresumption of lost grant see Ad-caster County, 84 Nebr. 654, 121 NW verse Possession §§ 650-655. 960; Brandt v. Olson, 79 Nebr. 612, 83. 113 NW 151; Rube v. Sullivan, 23 Nebr. 779, 37 NW 666. [a] Making improvements.-Where the owner of land through which a way runs knows that another is making costly improvements in the belief that the way is public, and offers no objection, he is estopped from asserting that the way is not public. Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90. See generally Estoppel § 163. State v. Kansas City, etc., R. Mich. Kruger V. Le Blanc, 70 Mich. 76, 37 NW 880. N. C.-State v. Norris, 174 N. C. 808. 93 SE 950. N. D.-Walcott Tp. v. Skauge, 6 N. D. 382, 71 NW 544. Vt.-Way v. Fellows, 91 Vt. 326, 100 A 682; Fowler v. Pratt, 11 Vt. 369. 84. U. S.-Hicks V. Fish, 12 F. Cas. No. 6,459, 4 Mason 310. 78. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Ala.-Rosser v. Bunn, 66 Ala. 89. Christie, 178 Ind. 691, 695, 100 NE Ark.-Waring v. Little Rock, 62 290; Portland. etc., R. Co. v. Clarke Ark. 408, 36 SW 24. N. B.-Rideout v. Howlett, 42 N. County, 48 Wash. 509. 93 P 1083; Conn.--Brownell V. Palmer, 22 B. 200. State v. Horlacher, 16 Wash. 325, Conn. 107. Ont.--Mytton V. Duck, 26 U. C. 47 P 748. Q. B. 61. 86. U. S.--Hull v. Richmond, 12 F. Cas. No. 6,861, 2 Woodb. & M. 337. Ala.-Thrasher v. Burr, 202 Ala. 307, 80 S 372; Card v. Cunningham, 199 Ala. 222, 74 S 335; Webb V. Story, 184 Ala. 583, 64 S 153; Bellview Cemetery Co. v. McEvers, 174 Ala. 457, 57 S 375; Merchant v. Markham, 170 Ala. 278, 54 S 236; Cross v. State, 147 Ala. 125, 41 S 875; Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 66, 19 S 901; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Kelly, 16 Ala. A. 360, 77 S 972. |