85

of the landowner,$4 and is such as to put the owner on notice that a highway is claimed as of right,s and is otherwise sufficient to establish a highway by prescription.86

[13] (5) User of Land Outside of Established Highway. An adverse user by the public, by mistake or otherwise, for the requisite period of time, of lands outside of the lines of an established highway is generally held to create a prescriptive right to use such lands as a highway,87 and after the lapse of the prescriptive period the public authorities cannot correct the mistake by opening the road on the lines originally established.88 There are cases, however, which hold that such is not the effect where land

Me.-Bethun v. Turner, 1 Me. 111, | (where the land is worked as a high- | Randall v. Rovelstad, 105 Wis. 410, 10 AmD 36. way). 81 NW 819.

S. C.-Hutto v. Tindall, 40 S. C. L. 396; Gibson v. Durham, 37 S. C. L. 85.

Tex.-Cunningham V. San Saba County, 1 Tex. Civ. A. 480, 20 SW

941.

Wash.-Brandt V. Orrock, Wash. 593, 181 P 35.

106

[a] Fencing highway.-(1) The rule that a public road cannot be established by prescription where it runs over a prairie does not apply where it is fenced on each side. Raven v. Travis County, (Tex. Civ. A.) 53 SW 355. (2) But fencing is not always necessary to establish a highway over such lands by prescription. Shugart v. Halliday, 2 Ill. A. 45; Hall v. Austin, 20 Tex. Civ. A. 59, 48 SW 53. (3) Where the road used is the only practicable way through the section of country in which it is located, the fact that it is not fenced is immaterial. Hall v. Austin, 20 Tex. Civ. A. 59, 48 SW 53. (4) Fencing as notice of adverse claim. See infra § 17, note 23.

Failure to work or recognize road as evidence of nonexistence of highway see supra § 11.

Presumption as to adverseness of user see infra § 27.

Recognition, maintenance, and repair of road as evidence of existence of highway see supra § 11. 84. Ark.-Brumley

V. State, 83

Ark. 236, 103 SW 615.
Colo. Lieber v. Peo., 33 Colo. 493,
81 P 270.

Ill-Falter v. Packard, 219 Ill. 356,
76 NE 495; Rose v. Farmington, 196
Ill. 226, 63 NE 631; Brushy Mound v.
McClintock, 150 I11. 129, 36 NE 976;
Grand Prairie v. Schneider, 211 Ill.
A. 107.

Ky-Downing v. Benedict, 147 Ky. 8, 143 SW 756.

N. C.-Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. C. 487, 55 AmR 619.

Tex.-Cunningham V. San Saba County, 1 Tex. Civ. A, 480, 20 SW 941.

Oh.-Taylor v. Bailey, Wright 646. Pa. Hancock v. Wyoming, 148 Pa. 635, 24 A 88; Com. v. Dicken, 145 Pa. 453, 22 A 1043; Com. v. Marshall, 137 Pa. 170, 20 A 580. Compare Morrow v. Com., 48 Pa. 305 (holding that where the road has not been opened by the supervisors under the order, a mere user with their acquiescence would not be competent to change the route located by the viewers). Wis.-Christianson V. Caldwell, 152 Wis. 135, 139 NW 751; State v. Lloyd, 133 Wis. 468, 113 NW 964.

[a] Where a highway has been mislocated, an abutting landowner who has acquiesced therein over seventy years cannot move his fence and narrow the road used by the public. Gulick v. Groendyke, 38 N. J. L. 114. [b] Where a highway has been obstructed, and another way equally convenient has been in use by general and long continued acquiescence, the latter will be considered as substituted for the original highway. Almy v. Church, 18 R. I. 182, 26 A 58.

[c] Time for correction of mistake. A person who wishes to make the question that by mistake or otherwise the highway used is not on the proper line should pursue the proper legal remedy for the correction of the mistake before the expiration of the twenty years' use which confirms the highway as public property; merely objecting is of no avail after the expiration of that time. Strong v. McKeever, 102 Ind. 578, 1 NE 502, 4 NE 11.

88. Patterson v. Munyan. 93 Cal. 128, 29 P 250; Strong v. Makeever, 102 Ind. 578, 1 NE 502, 4 NE 11; Lemasters V. State, 10 Ind. 391; Hancock v. Wyoming, 148 Pa. 635, 24 A 88. But see Blair v. Boesch, 59 Iowa 554, 13 NW 662 (holding that evidence of user is not admissible to vary the line of the road as originally surveyed).

89. Bolton v. McShane, 79 Iowa Wash.-Brandt V. Orrock, 106 26, 44 NW 211; State v. Schielb, 47 Wash. 593, 181 P 35; Rice v. Per- Iowa 611; State v. Gould, 40 Iowa shall, 41 Wash. 73, 82 P 1038; Wat-372; State v. Welpton, 34 Iowa 144; son v. Adams County, 38 Wash. 662, 80 P 201.

85. See infra § 17.

86. See supra § 4 et seq. 87. Cal-Patterson v. Munyan, 93 Cal. 128, 29 P 250.

Ill-Landers v. Whitefield, 154 Ill. 630, 39 NE 656 [overr dictum Manrose v. Parker, 90 Ill. 581]; Green v. Stevens, 49 III. A. 24.

Ind.-Bales v. Pidgeon, 129 Ind. 548, 29 NE 34; Strong v. Makeever, 102 Ind. 578, 1 NE 502. 4 NE 11; Lemasters v. State. 10 Ind. 391.

State v. Crow, 30 Iowa 258; Shanline
v. Wiltsie, 70 Kan. 177, 78 P 436;
Hamilton County v. Garrett, 62 Tex.
602. But see Dodson v. State, (Tex.
Cr.) 49 SW 78 (where the line of
road, as actually used by the public,
differs from the line laid out for it
by the commissioners' court at the
time of establishing it, the former
is the true road).

91. See supra § 4 et seq. 92. User as aiding defective record see infra § 151.

93. U. S.-Hicks v. Fish, 12 F. Cas. No. 6,459, 4 Mason 310.

Conn.-Blakeslee v. Tyler, 55 Conn. 387, 11 A 291.

Ill.-Elmira Highway Comrs. v. Osceola Highway Comrs., 74 Ill. A. 185; Willow Branch, etc., Highway Comrs. v. Peo., 69 Ill. A. 326.

Ind.-Debolt v. Carter, 31 Ind. 355; Jackson v. Smiley, 18 Ind. 247.

Iowa.-Joseph v. Sharp, 172 Iowa 254, 154 NW 469; Barnes v. Robertson, 156 Iowa 730, 137 NW 1018; Crimson V. Deck, 84 Iowa 344, 51 NW 55; State v. Waterman, 79 Iowa 360, 44 NW 677: Miller v. Schenck, 78 Iowa 372, 43 NW 225.

Kan.

Griswold v. Huffaker, 47 Kan. 690, 28 P 696, 48 Kan. 374, 29 P 693.

Ky.-Elliott v. Treadway, 10 B. Mon. 22.

Me.-Brock v. Chase, 39 Me. 300; Gibbs v. Larrabee. 37 Me. 506; Bigelow v. Hillman. 37 Me. 52; Larry v. Lunt. 37 Me. 69; State v. Bigelow, 34 Me. 243; Harlow v. Pike, 3 Me. 438.

Mass.-Richards v. Bristol County, 120 Mass. 401; Drury v. Worcester, 21 Pick. 44.

Mich. Neal v. Gilmore, 141 Mich. 519, 104 NW 609; Gage v. Pittsfield Tp., 120 Mich. 436. 79 NW 687; Grandville v. Jenison, 86 Mich. 567, 49 NW 544, 84 Mich. 54, 47 NW 600; Wayne County Sav. Bank v. Stockwell, 84 Mich, 586, 48 NW 174, 22 AmSR 708; Potter V. Safford, 50 Mich. 46, 14 NW 694 (so holding under statute).

Minn. Rogers v. Aitkin, 77 Minn. 539. 80 NW 702.

Mo.-Harper v. Morse, 46 Mo. A. 470; State v. Pullen, 43 Mo. A. 620 (it being expressly so declared by statute).

Mont.-State v. Auchard, 22 Mont. 14. 55 P 361.

Nebr.-Maticka

V. Jensen, 98 Nebr. 39, 151 NW 984; Lydick v. State, 61 Nebr. 309, 85 NW 70; Beatrice v. Black, 28 Nebr. 263. 44 NW 189; Langdon v. State, 23 Nebr. 509, 37 NW 79: Graham v. Flynn, 21 Nebr. 229, 31 NW 742.

N. H.-Bryant v. Tamworth, 68 N. H. 483, 39 A 431; Webster v. Boscawen, 67 N. H. 111, 29 A 670; In re Campton, 41 N. H. 197; Hayward v. Bath, 38 N. H. 179; State v. Boscawen. 32 N. H. 331; State v. Alstead, 90. Warren County V. Mastro-18 N. H. 59; Pritchard v. Atkinson, 3 nardi, 76 Miss. 273. 24 S 199; McCas-N. H. 335. land v. Walworth Tp., 132 Minn. 460. N. J.-Gulick v. Groendyke, 38 N 157 NW 715; Olwell v. Travis, 140 J. L. 114; Vantilburgh v. Shann, 24 Wis. 547, 123 NW 111; Randall v. N. J. L. 740; Ward v. Folly, 5 N. J. Rovelstad, 105 Wis. 410, 81 NW L. 570; Atty.-Gen. v. Morris, etc., R. Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 386 [rev on other [a] Mere deviation beyond the grounds 20 N. J. Eq. 530]. bounds which may be accounted for N. Y.-Wakeman v. Wilbur, 147 by topographical difficulties or care- N. Y. 657, 42 NE 341 [rev 4 NYS Der-lessness of travelers as to the true 938]; Corning v. Head, 86 Hun 12, line must be presumed not to be 33 NYS 360; Denning v. Roome, 6 N. Y.-Wakeman v. Wilbur, 147 N. adverse. McCasland V. Walworth Wend. 651; Colden v. Thurbur, 2 Y. 657, 42 NE 341 [rev 4 NYS 938] Tp., 132 Minn. 460, 157 NW 715; Johns. 424.

Mass. Com. v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 14 Gray 93.

Minn. Meyer V. Petersburg, 99 819. Minn. 450, 109 NW 840.

Nebr. Brandt v. Olson, 79 Nebr. 612, 113 NW 151, 114 NW 587. N. J.-Marlboro Tp. v. Van veer, 47 N. J. L. 259.

[15] f. Color or Claim of Right. In order to establish a highway by prescription the user must be under color or claim of right.99 This claim of right must be manifested by acts indicating an intention to enjoy the land as a highway without regard to the wishes of the owner, as by some appropriate action on the part of the public authorities. There need be no claim of right in words; it may be inferred from the manner, character, and frequency of the exercise of the right and the situation of the parties. The final test is whether the user is of such a character as to show the assertion or assumption of a right so to use the way,

in dispute as an intended highway, and when the other evidence in the case clearly establishes the fact Mass.-Jones v. New York, etc., R. that there was no intention to lay Co., 211 Mass. 521, 98 NE 607; Slater out a highway at the place in con- v. Gunn, 170 Mass. 509, 49 NE 1017, troversy, can tend to prove a high- 41 LRA 268; Sprow v. Boston, etc., way at such point by public user." R. Co., 163 Mass. 330, 39 NE 1024. Bartlett v. Beardmore, 74 Wis. 485, Miss.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ad489, 43 NW 492. kinson, 117 Miss. 118, 77 S 954; Wills [b] Use of part of highway-v. Reed, 86 Miss. 446, 38 S 793; BurnProof that part of an entire high-ley v. Mullins, 86 Miss. 441, 38 S way, the laying out of which was 635; Warren County v. Mastronardi, defective, has been used by the pub- 76 Miss. 273, 23 S 199. lic for the prescriptive period is evidence of a legal highway as to the part so used, although no distinct act of acceptance by the town be shown. State v. Morse, 50 N. H. 9. Width of highway by prescription under defective proceedings to establish see infra § 24.

or a use under the belief that such use is a matter of public right."

[16] g. Duration of User; Prescriptive Period. The period of time during which the user must continue in order to create a highway by prescription varies in the different states.5 Anciently prescription implied a claim to an incorporeal hereditament arising from the same having been enjoyed from time immemorial. At one time this period was fixed by statute at the commencement of the reign of Richard I, in the year 1189.8 Although this statute applied to actions for the recovery of land only, and not to those for the recovery of incorporeal things, the judges proceeded to apply the rule as to prescription established by the statute to incorporeal hereditaments, and among others to easements. Subsequently when by statute the time for bringing a possessory action to recover land was reduced to twenty years, it might have been expected that the judges would, as in the case of the earlier act, apply

dispute see supra § 9 text and notes 53-57.

Presumption arising from unexplained user see infra § 27.

4. Sprow v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 163 Mass. 330, 39 NE 1024.

5. See cases infra this note et seq.

the analogy of this act to incorporeal things. This, however, it seems, they did not do, but they effected the same end by the adoption of the fiction that a grant of the right would be presumed if it had been exercised for a period of twenty years, this doctrine of lost grant being in reality prescription under another name, shortened in analogy to the period of limitation fixed by the statute of James.10 Whether this doctrine applies in strict propriety to the creation of highways by user has been elsewhere discussed.11 However that may be, many courts of this country have recognized the twenty years' period as one sufficient for and necessary to the creation of a highway by adverse user. 12 By the great weight of modern authority, however, in the absence of any statute specially applicable to highways, the duration of the user is governed by analogy by the local statute fixing the time for bringing an action for land, whether that time is fixed at twenty years or a greater or lesser period.13 In many states the

V.

11. See supra § 3. 196 SW 930; Pulaski County Road 12. U. S.-Hull v. Richmond, 12 Impr. Dist. No. 2 v. Winkler, 102 F. Cas. No. 6,861, 2 Wood. & M. 337. Ark. 553, 145 SW 209: Patton v. Ala.-Card V. Cunningham, 199 State, 50 Ark. 53, 6 SW 227; HowAla. 222, 74 S 335; Jones v. Bright, ard v. State, 47 Ark. 431, 2 SW 331. 140 Ala. 268, 37 S 79; Harper v. Cal-Hartley V. Vermillion, 141 State, 109 Ala. 66, 19 S 901; Rosser Cal. 339, 74 P 987, 70 P 273; v. Bunn, 66 Ala. 89; Jackson v. Boh-Schwerdtle V. Placer County, 108 [a] Period held sufficient. (1) lin, 16 Ala. A. 105, 75 S 697. P Cal. 589, 41 448; Patterson Twenty-five years. Smith v. Illinois Del.-State v. Reybold, 5 Del. 484. Munyan, 93 Cal. 128, 29 P 250. Cent. R. Co., 105 SW 96, 31 KyL D. C. District of Columbia V. Colo.-Starr v. Peo., 17 Colo. 458, 1323. (2) Thirty or thirty-five years. Robinson, 14 App. 512 [aff 180 U. S. 30 P 64. Patton v. Forgery, 171 Mo. A. 1, 15392, 21 SCt 283, 45 L. ed. 440]. SW 575; Wheeler v. McVey, (Tex. Ga. Southern R. Co. v. Combs, 124 Civ. A.) 164 SW 1100. (3) Forty years. Canday v. Lambert, 2 Root (Conn.) 173; Potts v. Clark, 62 SW 884, 23 KyL 332; Wilkins v. Barnes, 1 KyL 328; Reed v. Northfield, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 94, 23 AmD 662; Diehl v. Chambersburg, etc., St. R. Co., 17 Pa. Dist. 961; Mytton v. Duck, 26 U. C. Q. B. 61. (4) Fifty years. Rylee v. State, 106 Miss. 123, 63 S 342. (5) Sixty years. Reed v. Mayo, 220 Mass. 565, 108 NE 366; Odiorne v. Wade, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 421. (6) Seventy years. Leiweke v. Link, 147 Mo. A. 19, 126 SW 197; Gulick v. Groendyke, 28 N. J. L. 114.

[b] Period held insufficient.-(1) Three years. Craig v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 185 SW 944. (2) Five years. Sullivan v. Mefford, 143 Iowa 210, 121 NW 569; Oliphant v. Atchison County Comrs., 18 Kan. 386.

Ga. 1004, 53 SE 508 (twenty years
sufficient, if not necessary); John-
son v. State, 1 Ga. A. 195, 58 SE 265
(twenty years necessary).

123.

Iowa.-Davis V. Bonaparte, 137 Iowa 196, 114 NW 896; Whetstone v. Hill, 130 Iowa 637, 105 NW 193: Cedar Rapids v. Young, 119 Iowa 552, 93 NW 567; McAllister v. Pickup, 84 Iowa 65, 50 NW 556; State v. Ill. Thorworth v. Scheets, 269 Ill. Green, 41 Iowa 693; State v. Tucker, 573, 110 NE 42; Doss v. Bunyan, 262 36 Iowa 485; Ewell v. Greenwood, Ill. 101, 104 NE 153; Chicago V. 26 Iowa 377; Keyes v. Taft, 19 Iowa Howes, 169 Ill. 260, 48 NE 408; Grube | v. Nichols, 36 Ill. 92; Gentleman v. Kan. Meade v. Topeka, 75 Kan. Soule, 32 Ill. 271, 83 Am D 264; 61, 88 P 574; Topeka v. Cowee, 48 Lewiston V. Proctor, 27 Ill. 414; Kan. 345, 29 P 560; State v. Horn, 35 Daniels v. Peo., 21 Ill. 439; Road Kan. 717, 12 P 148; Missouri, etc.. Dist. Comrs. v. Swain, 168 Ill. A. R. Co. v. Long, 27 Kan. 684. And 674; Toof v. Decatur, 19 Ill. A. 204. see Oliphant V. Atchison County Comrs., 18 Kan. 386 (holding that the public acquire no right to the possession of a highway by mere prescription any sooner than an individual does to the land he occupies).

Me.--State v. Bunker, 59 Me. 366;
Mayberry v. Standish, 56 Me. 342;
Estes v. Troy, 5 Me. 368; Rowell v.
Montville, 4 Me. 270.

Md. Easter v. Overlea Land Co.,
129 Md. 627, 99 A 893; Thomas v.
Ford, 63 Md. 346, 52 AmR 513; Day
v. Allendar, 22 Md. 511.

Mass.-Com. v. Coupe, 128 Mass.
63; Jennings v. Tisbury, 5 Gray 73;
Com. v. Low, 3 Pick. 408.

N. J.-Riverside v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 74 N. J. L. 476, 66 A 433;
Prudden v. Lindsley, 29 N. J. Eq.
615; Holmes v. Jersey City, 12 N. J.
Eq. 299 (semble).

[c] By the law of Scotland, where the English Prescription Act of 1832 is not in force, forty years' user of a road by the public is sufficient to establish the right of user; but evidence of used as of right for a period short of forty years is not sufficient, unless the circumstances N. C.-Tise V. Whitaker-Harvey are such that the user raises a pre- Co., 146 N. C. 374, 59 SE 1012; State sumption of prior user of the same v. Wolf, 112 N. C. 889, 17 SE 528; character extending over the re- Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. C. 487, 55 quired period. Edinburgh Magis-AmR 619; Kennedy v. Williams, 87 trates v. North British R. Co., 5 F. N. C, 6; State v. Purify, 86 N. C. 681; (Ct. Sess.) 620. Boyden v. Achenbach, 79 N. C. 539; State v. Marble, 26 N. C. 318.

6. Washburn Easem. & Serv. 124; Riley v. Buchanan, 116 Ky. 625, 76 S.' C.-State v. Washington, 80 S. SW 527, 25 KyL 863, 63 LRA 642; C. 376, 61 SE 896; Kirby v. SouthWitt v. Hughes, 66 SW 281, 23 KyLern R. Co., 63 S. C. 494, 41 SE 765; 1836; Clark v. Hull, 184 Mass. 164, Hutto v. Tindall, 40 S. C. L. 396. 68 NE 60; Com. v. Coupe, 128 Mass. Tenn. Morgan County V. Goans, 63; Folger v. Worth, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 138 Tenn. 381, 198 SW 69, 5 ALR 108; Odiorne V. Wade, 5 Pick. 198: Raht v. Southern R. Co., (Ch.) (Mass.) 421; Hancock v. Wyoming 50 SW 72; Le Roy v. Leonard, (Ch. Borough, 148 Pa. 635, 24 A 88; State A.) 35 SW 884. V. Cumberland, 6 R. I. 496 [cit Hampson v. Taylor, 15 R. I. 83, 8 A 331, 23 A 732].

7.

Statute of Westminster I c 39 [3 Edw. I (A. D. 1275)]. 8. Washburn Easem. & Serv. 124. 9. St. 21 Jac. I c 16 (A. D. 1623). 10. 2 Tiffany Real Prop. § 445; Washburn Easem. & Serv. 125.

Wis.-Nuthals v. Green Bay, 162
Wis. 434. 156 NW 472; State V.
Lloyd, 133 Wis. 468, 113 NW 964;
Rolling v. Emrich, 122 Wis. 134. 99
NW 464; Chippewa Falls v. Hop-
pins, 109 Wis. 611, 85 NW 553;
Randall v. Rovelstad, 105 Wis. 410,
81 NW 819.

Ky.-Rose v. Nolen, 166 Ky. 336. 179 SW 229; Riley v. Buchanan, 116 Ky. 625, 76 SW 527, 25 KyL 863, 63 LRA 642; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Com., 104 Ky. 35, 46 SW 207; Porter v. Clinton, 74 SW 232, 24 KyL 2435.

Miss. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Adkinson. 117 Miss. 118. 77 S 954.

Mo.-School Dist. No. 84 V. Tooloose, 195 SW 1023; Fitzgerald v. De Soto Spec. Road Dist., 195 SW 695; Laclede-Christy Clay Products Co. v. St. Louis, 246 Mo. 446, 151 SW 460: Longworth v. Sedevic, 165 Mo. 221, 65 SW 260; Kansas City Milling Co. v. Riley, 133 Mo. 574, 34 SW 835; State v. Wells, 70 Mo. 635; State v. Walters, 69 Mo. 463; State v. Young, 27 Mo. 259; State v. Kitchen, (A.) 216 SW 981; Walker v. Southwest Missouri R. Co., (A.) 198 SW 441; Boonville Spec. Road Dist. v. Fuser, 184 Mo. A. 634, 171 SW 962; Lee v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 150 Mo. A. 175, 129 SW 773; Leiweke v. Link, 147 Mo. A. 19, 126 SW 197; State v. Transue, 131 Mo. A. 323, 111 SW 523; Dow v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 116 Mo. A. 555, 92 SW 744; Power v. Dean, 112 Mo. A. 288, 86 SW 1100; State v. Macy, 72 Mo. A. 427.

Mont-State v. Auchard, 22 Mont. 14, 55 P 361.

Nebr.-Barden v. State, 98 Nebr. 180, 152 NW 330; Maticka v. Jensen, 13. Ark. McLain V. Keel, 135 98 Nebr. 39, 151 NW 984; Brym v. Presumption of lost grant see Ad- | Ark. 496, 205 SW 894; St. Louis, Butler County, 86 Nebr. 841, 126 NW verse Possession §§ 650-655. etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 130 Ark. 64, 1521; Nelson v. Sneed, 76 Nebr. 201,

§§ 16-17]

HIGHWAYS

as is necessary

of congress for highway purposes,17
to establish a prescriptive highway over private
lands in general.

[17] h. Knowledge and Consent of Landowner -(1) Knowledge. In order that a highway over private lands may be established by prescription, the owner must have had knowledge of the adverse user,18 and of the claim of right,19 especially where

period for prescribing a highway has been specially fixed by statute.14 Under such statutes, use of the required character for the statutory period is nec15 The essary, but sufficient, to constitute a highway.15 same period of time is necessary in order to establish a highway by prescription over lands formerly occupied by a highway which has been legally discontinued,16 or over public lands of the United States a right of way over which has been granted by act 107 NW 255; Kansas City, etc., R. | difference between the use of a road | James v. Sammis, 132 N. Y. 239, 30 as a public highway for fifteen years NE 502 [aff 10 NYS 143]; Lewis v. Co. v. State, 74 Nebr. 868, 105 NW required to establish a high- New York, etc., R. Co., 123 N. Y. 496, Culver V. Yonkers, 80 713; Bleck v. Keller, 72 Nebr. 826, now 393]; way, and the use for twenty years 26 NE 357 [aff 5 NYS 313, 1 Silv. 103 NW 674; Gehris v. Fuhrman, 68 Nebr. 325, 94 NW 133; Hill v. Mc- required under the common law, ex- Sup. N. Y. 524 mem, 72 NE 1141 mem]; Ginnis, 64 Nebr. 187, 89 NW 783; cept the difference in time." Doss v. App. Div. 309, 80 NYS 1034 [aff 180 Lewis v. Lincoln, 55 Nebr. 1, 75 NW Bunyan, supra. Peo. v. Osborn, 84 Hun 441, 32 NYS 154; Engle v. Hunt, 50 Nebr. 358, 69 1120 mem]; Devenpeck v. Lambert, NW 970; Shaffer v. Stull, 32 Nebr. 358 [aff 155 N. Y. 685 mem, 50 NE 44 Barb. 596; Wellsville v. Hallock, North Hempstead NYS 961; 94, 48 NW 882; Graham v. Hartnett, 10 Nebr. 517, 7 NW 280. 139 R. Co. V. Oh. Cincinnati, 17 Wend. 9; Galatin v. Gardiner, 7 Roseville, 76 Oh. St. 108, 81 NE 178; Highway Comrs. v. Queens County, Oberhelman v. Allen, 26 Oh. Cir. Ct. Johns. 106. N. S. 305, 7 Oh. A. 251.

etc.,

Or. Stotts v. Dichdel, 70 Or. 86, 139 P 932; Parrott v. Stewart, 65 Or. 254, 132 P 523; Ridings v. Marion County, 50 Or. 30, 91 P 22; Wallowa County v. Wade, 43 Or. 253, 72 P 793; Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Or. 438, 63 P 614; Douglas County Road Co. v. Abraham, 5 Or. 318.

Pa. Felt v. West Homestead Borough, 260 Pa. 11, 103 A 508; Coward V. Llewellyn, 209 Pa. 582, 58 A 1066; Com. v. Cole, 26 Pa. 187; Kyper v. ro Sheaffer, 42 Pa. Super. 277; In Springfield Tp. Road, 14 Montg. Co. 97; Washington Borough v. Steiner, 25 Pa. Super. 392.

Tex.-Porter v. Johnson, (Civ. A.) 151 SW 599; Evans v. Scott, 37 Tex. v. Civ. A. 373, 83 SW 874; Hall Austin, 20 Tex. Civ. A. 59, 48 SW 53; Cunningham v. San Saba County, 1 Tex. Civ. A. 480, 20 SW 941. Vt.-Morse v. Ranno, 32 Vt. 600; State v. Wilkinson, 2 Vt. 480, 21 AmD 560.

15. U. S.-District of Columbia v.
Robinson, 180 U. S. 92, 21 SCt 283,
v. Keel, 135 Ark.
Ark.-McLain
45 L. ed. 440.
SW 894; Pulaski County
496, 205
Impr. Dist. No. 2 v. Winkler, 102
Ark. 553, 145 SW 209.

Colo.-Lieber v. Peo., 33 Colo. 493,
81 P 270.

V.

N. D.-Walcott Tp. v. Skauge, 6 N. D. 382, 71 NW 544.

Or.-Ridings v. Marion County, 50 Or. 30, 91 P 22.

Pa. Felt v. West Homestead Borough, 260 Pa. 11, 103 A 508.

R. I.-Goelet v. Newport, 14 R. I. 295; Simmons v. Providence, 12 R. I. 8: Remington v. Millerd, 1 R. I. 93. S. D.-Roche Realty, etc., Co. v. Highlands Co., 29 S. D. 169, 135 NW 684. W. Va. W. Va.-Ball v. Cox, 29

Ida. State v. Berg, 28 Ida. 724, 155 P 968; Juliaetta v. Smith, 12 Ida. 288, 85 P 923. Ill-Chicago v. Galt, 224 Ill. 421, 79 NE 701; Peotone v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 224 Ill. 101, 79 NE 678; Rose v. Farmington, 196 Ill. 226, 63 NE 631; Madison Tp. v. Gallagher. 159 105, 42 NE 316; Landers Ill. Whitefield, 154 Ill. 630, 39 NE 656; v. Rovelstad, 105 Randall Wis. V. Chicago v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 152 Ill. 561, 38 NE 768; Manrose v. Par-407. 1 SE 673. Witter Ill. Dickerman 581; 90 819; NW Wis. 410, 81 ker, Marion, 122 Ill. A. 154; Bolo Tp. v. Liszewski, 116 Ill. A. 135; Willow Damitz, 81 Wis. 385, 51 NW 575; Comrs. Hart v. Red Cedar, 63 Wis. 634, 24 etc., Highway Branch, 657, 9 NW 809; Blute v. Scribner, 23 Peo., 69 Ill. A. 326; Peo. v. Worth NW 634; Davis v. Fulton, 52 Wis. Tp. Highway Comrs., 52 Ill. 498. Wis. 357; State v. Joyce, 19 Wis. 90; Wyo.-Sheridan County v. Patrick, Tomlinson v. Wallace, 16 Wis. 224. 18 Wyo. 130, 104 P 531, 107 P 748. Can.-Rhodes v. Perusse, 41 Can. S. C. 264.

V.

V.

16. Coakley v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 159 Mass. 32, 33 NE 930.

Ind.-Evans v. Bowman, 183 Ind. 264, 108 NE 956; Shellhouse v. State, 110 Ind. 509, 11 NE 484; Ft. Wayne V. Makeever, 102 v. Coombs, 107 Ind. 75, 7 NE 743, 57 AmR 82; Strong Ind. 578, 1 NE 502, 4 NE 11; Yelton 101 Ind. 58; Kyle v. Okanogan v. Addison, V. 94 Ind. 115; Wash.-Stofferan County, 17. Walcott Tp. v. Skauge, 6 N. D. County, 76 Wash. 265, 136 P 484; Kosciusko State v. Rixie, 50 Wash. 676, 97 P Nichols v. State, 89 Ind. 298; Ross 804; Vogler v. Anderson, 46 Wash. v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90; Higham v. 382, 71 NW 544; Stofferan v. Okanogan AmSR 932, 9 Warner, 69 Ind. 549; Stephenson v. County, 76 Wash. 265, 136 P 484; Vo202, 89 P 551, 123 LRANS 1223; Seattle v. Smithers, 37 Farmer, 49 Ind. 234; Debolt v. Car- gler v. Anderson, 46 Wash. 202, 89 P ter, 31 Ind. 355; Epler v. Niman, 5551, 123 AmSR 932, 9 LRANS 1223. 18. D. C.-District of Columbia v. Wash. 119, 79 P 615. [a] Ind. 459; Stewart v. Swartz, 57 Ind. A. 249, 106 NE 719; Gillespie v. Dul- Robinson, 14 App. 512 [aff 180 U. S. ing. 41 Ind. A. 217, 83 NE 728; Mc-92, 21 SCt 283, 45 L. ed. 440]. Claskey v. McDaniel, 37 Ind. Á. 59, 74 NE 1023; Blumental v. State, 21 Ind. A. 665, 51 NE 496; Cromer v. State, 21 Ind. A. 502, 52 NE 239; Brown v. Hines, 16 Ind. A. 1, 44 NE 655; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Etzler, 3 Ind. A. 562, 30 NE 32.

Amendment of statute pending user-Where the period of limitation when the adverse use of a highway began was twenty years, a the changing subsequent statute period of limitation to ten years apState v. plies to such highway. Macy, 72 Mo. A. 427.

was neces

14. See statutory provisions. [a] In Illinois (1) a continuous user for twenty years sary at common law to the creation See of a highway by prescription. (2) This continued supra note 12. to be the law until 1872, when the legislature, by § 1 of the Road and Bridge Act, declared that roads used for ten years should be public high(3) In Laws 1871-72 p 675. ways. the revision of the Road Law in 1883 it was declared that all roads used by the public as highways for twenty years were public highways. (4) In 1887 this Laws 1883 p 137. law was amended and the time was Laws 1887 reduced to fifteen years. p 263. And this is the present law. Middletown v. Glenn, 278 Ill. 149, 115 NE 847; Thorworth v. Scheets, 269 Ill. 573, 110 NE 42; Doss v. Bunyan, 262 Ill. 101, 108, 104 NE 153; Palmer v. Chicago, 248 Ill. 201, 93 NE 765; Menard County Road Dist. No. 1 v. Beebe, 231 Ill. 147, 83 NE 131; Canteen v. Weber, 188 Ill. A. 405. (5) "The effect of these various amendments was to change the time within which a highway might be established by prescription but not Doss to do away with any of the other requirements for that purpose." (6) "There is no v. Bunyan, supra. [29 C. J.-25]

Ill-Hansen v. Green, 275 Ill. 221, 113 NE 982; Thorworth v. Scheets, 269 III. 573, 110 NE 42; Palmer v. Chicago, 248 Ill. 201. 93 NE 765; Chicago v. Wildman, 240 Ill. 215, 88 NE 559; Chicago v. Galt, 224 Ill. 421, 79 NE 701; Falter v. Packard, 219 Ill. Mich.-Neal v. Gilmore, 141 Mich. 356, 76 NE 495; Rose v. Farmington, v. Gallagher, 159 Ill. 105, 42 NE 316; 519, 104 NW 609; Stickley v. Sodus 196 Ill. 226, 63 NE 631; Madison Tp. Tp., 131 Mich. 510, 91 NW 745, 50 Brooks, 119 Chicago v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 152 LRA 287; Bigelow v. Curry 810; v. Ill. 561, 38 NE 768; Heater v. ChiMich. 208, 77 NW 58 Mich. 524, 99 NW 472;cago, etc., R. Co., 200 III. A. 231; PleasPlace, erman v. Marion, 122 Ill. A. 154. Huff, 91 Grandville v. Jenison, 86 Mich. 567, ant View v. Day, 155 Ill. A. 120; DickInd.-Greene County v. 49 NW 544; Nye v. Clark, 55 Mich. 599, 22 NW 57; Potter v. Safford, 50 Ellsworth 34 Mich. 512; Mich. 46, 14 NW 694; Green v. Be- Ind. 333. litz, Grand Rapids, 27 Mich. 250; Bumpus v. Miller, 4 Mich. 159.

V.

Minn.-Rogers v. Aitkin, 77 Minn. 539, 80 NW 702; Hall v. St. Paul, 56 Minn. 428, 57 NW 928; Elfelt v. Stillwater St. R. Co., 53 Minn. 68, 55 NW 116; State v. Waholz, 28 Minn. 114, 9 NW 578.

Kan.-State v. Horn, 35 Kan. 717, Long, 27 Kan. 684. 12 P 148; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v.

Me.-Bethum v. Turner, 1 Me. 111, 10 AmD 36.

Mo.-Harper v. Morse, 46 Mo. A.
470; State v. Pullen, 43 Mo. A. 620.
Diers,
V.
Nebr.-Burk
139 P 932.
NW 263; Brym
721, 169
County, 86 Nebr. 841, 126 NW 521.

102 Nebr.
v. Butler

V.

50 Nebr. V. Hunt, Nebr.-Engle 358, 69 NW 970; Shaffer v. Stull, 32 Hartnett, 10 Nebr. 517, 7 NW 280. Nebr. 94, 48 NW 882; Graham Oh.-Reed v. Harlan, 2 Oh. Dec. (Reprint) 553, 3 WestLMonth 632. Or. Stotts v. Dichdel, 70 Or. 86, Va.-Gaines v. Merryman, 95 Va. 660. 29 SE 738. N. H.-Harriman v. Moore, 74 N. H. Wash.-Rice v. Pershall, 41 Wash. [a] 277, 67 A 225; Bryant v. Tamworth, In New York under the high68 N. H. 483, 39 A 431; State v. Morse, 73, 82 P 1038. 50 N. H. 9; Northumberland v. Atto be otherwise. Devenpeck v. Lamlantic, etc., R. Co., 35 N. H. 574; Hay-way prescription act, the rule seems V. Delaware, etc., bert, 44 Barb. 596. 19. wood v. Charleston, 34 N. H. 23. N. Y.-Cohoes Maltman v. Chicago, etc., R. Canal Co., 134 N. Y. 397, 31 NE 887;

the lands are wild and unoccupied.20 Unless required by statute," actual knowledge is not necessary, but it may be implied from the character of the user and the facts and circumstances of the case.22 But if the owner has no actual knowledge of the user, it must be open and of such a character, and the facts and circumstances must be such, as to put him on notice thereof and of the fact that a public right of travel is claimed.23

scription; 26 nor, on the other hand, does the fact that the owner does not intend to abandon his land, and dissents to its user as a highway, preclude the public from acquiring a highway over it,27 unless he does some positive act amounting to an interruption of the adverse user.28 So the fact that the owner's acquiescence in the adverse user is due to a mistaken belief that a highway over the land has been duly established by the public authorities does not defeat the public's prescriptive right thereto.29

[§ 19] 3. Against Whom Prescription May Be Asserted.30 By the better opinion the doctrine of prescription as applied to highways is based, not on the presumption of a lost grant, but on the presumption of an antecedent exercise of the right of eminent domain by the public authorities;1 and since the exercise of this power is not affected by any legal disability of the landowner,32 it should follow that a highway may be acquired by prescription over lands owned by a person who is non sui juris. Most of the cases in which this question is involved, however, hold to the contrary,34 deciding the ques

[§ 18] (2) Consent or Acquiescence. Under the theory of prescription proper, the user must have been with the acquiescence or consent of the landowner;24 but in many of the states it is now held that under statutes providing for the establishment of highways by user the intention of the landowner is immaterial, and that a road used by the public for the required period becomes a highway even without the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the land.25 The fact that he intends to abandon his land to the public and acquiesces in its use as a highway does not, on the one hand, detract from the hostility of the public's user so as to preclude preCo., 41 Ill. A. 229; Lewis v. Lincoln, rod limits was not in itself such no- | Ida. 133, 93 P 780. 55 Nebr. 1, 75 NW 154. tice to the landowner as would set 111.-Peotone V. Illinois Cent. R. 20. Grand Prairie V. Schneider, in motion the six year statute of Co., 224 111. 101, 79 NE 678; Madison 211 Ill. A. 107; Topeka v. Cowee, 48 limitation." McCasland v. Walworth Tp. v. Gallagher, 159 Ill. 105, 42 NE Kan. 345, 29 P 560; Van Wanning v. Tp., 132 Minn. 460, 463, 157 NW 316; Georgetown v. McCorkle, 164 Ill. Deeter, 78 Nebr. 282, 110 NW 703, 715. A. 314. 112 NW 902: Watson V. Adams County, 38 Wash. 662, 80 P 201.

[b] Improvements. - Where a Ind. Evans v. Bowman, 183 Ind. way was originally private, it would 264, 108 NE 956; Pitser v. McCreery, be presumed that slight improve- 172 Ind. 663, 88 NE 303, 89 NE 317; ments made thereon were made with Southern Indiana R. Co. v. Norman, the desire to make the way passable, 165 Ind. 126, 74 NE 896; Strong v and was, therefore, insufficient to Makeever, 102 Ind. 578, 1 NE 502, 4 impart to the owners of the fee no- NE 11 [overr Greene County v. Huff, tice of an intention to assert an ad-91 Ind. 333]; Ross v. Thompson, 78 verse use so as to convert the way Ind. 90; Stewart v. Swartz, 57 Ind. into a public road. A. C. Bohren- A. 249. 106 NE 719; McClaskey v. stedt Co. v. Scharen, 60 Or. 349, 119 McDaniel, 37 Ind. A. 59, 74 NE 1023; P 337. Brown v. Hines, 16 Ind. A. 1, 44 NE 655.

Mich.-Campau

V. Detroit, 104 Mich. 560, 62 NW 718; Ellsworth v. Grand Rapids, 27 Mich. 250.

21. See statutory provisions. [a] In Iowa (1) under Code (1873) § 2031, Code (1897) § 3004, providing that adverse possession must be proved by evidence distinct from the use, and that the one against whom the claim is made had express notice thereof, a highway cannot be established by user alone, although the owner had knowledge of it, unless he also had express no- [c] Necessity of fencing as notice that a highway was claimed in- tice.-Where a pass through the dependent of the mere use. Long v. mountains was the only available Wilson. 186 Iowa 834, 173 NW 76; passway to the public, the fact that Joseph v. Sharp, 172 Iowa 254, 154 the public had not fenced it would NW 469; Gray v. Haas, 98 Iowa 502, not bar their acquiring a prescrip67 NW 394; State v. Mitchell, 58 tive right from the beginning of Iowa 567, 12 NW 598. (2) One pur- such use, such fence being unneces- N. D.-Walcott Tp. v. Skauge, 6 chasing land with knowledge of pub-sary as notice. Hall v. Austin, 20 N. D. 382, 71 NW 544. lic travel across it, and who put up Tex. Civ. A. 59, 48 SW 53. And see "Under the statute [under cona gate and bars in fencing it, to ac- supra § 12 note 83. sideration, and in this kind of procommodate such travel, is not a pur- Necessity of acts indicating ad-ceeding] but one question is prechaser without notice of the exist- verse user under claim of right see ence of a road. Bannister v. O'Con- supra § 9. nor, 113 Iowa 541, 85 NW 767. (3) Previous to this statute either actual or implied notice was sufficient. State v. Teeters, 97 Iowa 458, 66 NW 754; State v. Kansas City, etc., Co., 45 Iowa 139.

24. Il-Madison Tp. V. Gallagher, 159 Ill. 105, 42 NE 316; Chicago v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 152 Ill. 561, 38 NE 768; Warren v. Jacksonville, R. 15 Ill. 236, 58 AmD 610; Toof v. Decatur, 19 Ill. A. 204.

V.

22. Barnes v. Daveck, 7 Cal. A. Ind.-Louisville, etc., R. C'o. v. 220, 94 P 779; Thorworth v. Scheets, Miller, 12 Ind. A. 414, 40 NE 269 Ill. 573, 110 NE 42; Chicago v.539. Galt, 224 I. 421, 79 NE 701; Brushy Kan. Missouri, etc., R. Co. Mound v. McClintock, 150 II. 129, 36 Long, 27 Kan. 684. NE 976; Grand Prairie v. Schneider, Mass.-Jones v. New York, etc., R. 211 Ill. A. 107. And see cases infra Co., 211 Mass. 521, 98 NE 607; Sprow note 23. v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 163 Mass. 330, 39 NE 1024.

V.

23. Ill. O'Connell Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co.. 184 Ill. 308. 56 NE 355; Brushy Mound V. McClintock, 150 l. 129, 36 NE 976; Gentleman v. Soule. 32 III. 271, 83 AmD 264; Grand Prairie v. Schneider, 211 Ill. A. 107. Minn.

Mo.-State v. Wells, 70 Mo. 635;
State v. Hood, 143 Mo. A. 313, 126
SW 992.

N. Y Devenpeck v. Lambert, 44
Barb. 596.

Va.-Gaines v. Merryman, 95 Va.
660. 29 SE 738.

a

N. Y.-Speir v. Utrecht, 121 N. Y. 420, 24 NE 692; Devenpeck v. Lambert, 44 Barb. 596.

sented, and that is, Has the road been used as a highway for twenty years? § 7663 Burns 1908 Act 1905, p. 521, § 15. If it has, the statute fixes its status as a highway, and it is wholly immaterial whether the use has been with the consent, or over the objection of the landowner." Pitser v. McCreery, 172 Ind. 663, 669, 88 NE 303, 89 NE 317.

[a] User under revocable license or permission from the owner, however, is insufficient to prescribe a highway. See supra § 9. 26. See supra § 9.

27.

28.

29.

See cases supra note 25.
See supra § 8.

State v. Waterman, 79 Iowa 360, 44 NW 677; Duncombe v. Powers, 75 Iowa 185, 39 NW 261.

Mistake as to location of established highway see supra § 13. 30. Prescription against sovereign see infra § 20.

31. See supra § 3.

McCasland V. Walworth Tp., 132 Minn. 460, 157 NW 715. [a] In determining whether there N. C.-State v. Wolf, 112 N. C. 889, was such acquiescence in the use of 32. See Eminent Domain § 75 text 17 SE 528. way as is necessary in order to and notes 64, 65. Or.-A. C. Bohrnstedt Co. V. establish a public right, mere per- 33. Elliott R. & St. (2d ed) Scharen, 60 Or. 349, 119 P 337. mission is not enough, but there $8 177, 180. must be something to show that 34. State v. Macy, 67 Mo. A. such permission was accompanied 326; Wright v. Fanning, (Tex. Civ. with knowledge or reason to believe A.) 86 SW 786; Evans V. Scott. that the way was used under a claim 37 Tex. Civ. A. 373, 83 SW of a public right. Sprow v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 163 Mass. 330, 39 NE 1024.

Tex.-Hall v. Austin, 20 Tex. Civ. A. 59, 48 SW 53.

Wash.-Rice v. Pershall, 41 Wash. 73, 82 P 1038.

[a] Deviation.-"The travel and use by the public in the instant case was had with reference to the fact that a legal highway had been laid 25. Cal.-Freshour out on the section line, and a Cal. 443. 34 P 87. deviation of travel outside the four Ida. Meservey

V.

874.

[a] Rule applied where the right is asserted against one other than V. Hihn, 99 defendant or some person under whom he claims. Austin v. Hall, 93 14 Tex. 591, 57 SW 563.

Gulliford,