Page images

corporate duty, and to regard such corporations in this respect as public or state agencies, and not liable to be sued civilly for damages caused by negligence to perform this duty, unless the right of action be expressly given hy statute. And

A provision in a statute that "the county is responsible for providing and keeping passable and in good repair bridges and all public highways," is not equivalent to saying that the county shall be responsible in damages for a failure to keep a bridge in repair. Barnett v. Contra Costa County, 67 Cal. 78.

Section 551, Civil Code, requiring every water or canal corporation to construct and keep in repair for public use across their canal, flume, etc., all bridges that the supervisors may require, has not been repealed by section 2737, Political Code, as amended in 1883. There is no conflict between the sections, and it is not incumbent on the road overseer to construct such bridge and then recover the cost from the canal company. Mandamus will lie to compel the canal company to construct such bridge. County of Fresno v. Canal Co., 68 Cal. 359. See also Fresno v. Fresno C. & I. Co., 98 Cal. 183.

“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 can not be presumed in the absence of an unequivocal intention on the part of the owner to make the dedication. And

Stronger evidence of intention to dedicate to public use is required as to country roads than

as to streets, and as to neighborhood or timber roads than as to a general thoroughfare. Quinn v. Anderson, 70 Cal. 457.

Section 2642, Political Code, as amended in 1883, requiring the board of supervisors of each county, upon petition, to appoint a road overseer, is merely directory, and mandamus will not lie to compel the board to appoint a particular person to such office. And so with amendment of 1885, same section. Davisson v. Board of Supervisors, 70 Cal. 612.

Sowing grain and pasturing cattle on the sides of a public roadbed, are not sufficient to show either an abandonment of the road by the public or its adverse possession by the person doing such acts.

Watkins v. Lynch, 71 Cal. 22.

A writ of review cannot be issued to annul the action of a board of supervisors granting a steam railroad company the right to use a public highway, when the affidavit of the petitioner does not show that he has any beneficial interest in the matter distinguishable from that of the mass of the community. Ashe v. Board of Supervisors, 71 Cal. 236.

Under Section 2743, Political Code, as amended in 1883, a cause of action to abate a nuisance caused by an obstruction in a highway, and a cause of action to recover the penalty of ten dollars per day for every day the nuisance remained after notice to remove it, may be united in one complaint, and the road overseer is the proper plaintiff; the money recovered in the action belonging to the road district fund. Bailey v. Dale, 71 Cal. 35.

By mistake a road was surveyed and opened by viewers across land of plaintiff at a place other than that petitioned for and ordered, and was so used by the public without objection from plaintiff for about ten years; after which the board of supervisors ordered defendant, road overseer, to open the road to the public on its true line. Held, the road as used had become a public highway by user, and could not be changed except by proceedings regularly instituted for that purpose. Pol. Code 2618; Babcock v. Welch, 71 Cal. 401.

The issuance of bonds is not within the scope of the general and ordinary powers of a board of supervisors. Those purchasing such bonds are held to the necessity of scrutinizing the authority for their issuance, and if issued without authority of law they are valueless even in the hands of purchasers for full value. Sutro v. Pettit, 74 Cal. 336.

The bonds issued by Yuba county under act of March 28, 1872 [Stats. 1871-2, p. 662], for the purpose of constructing, repairing and improving wagon-roads and bridges within the county cannot be paid by the county without the consent of the holders, prior to the expiration of twenty years from the date of their issue, except in the manner and from the fund provided for in the statute; and an attempt by the county to make a prior payment thereof from a different fund is ineffectual


against a non-consenting bondholder. Davis v. County of Yuba, 75 Cal. 453.

Under Section 2681, Political Code, the board of supervisors has discretion to make a road sixty feet wide. And

Under section 2682, Political Code, a petition for the construction of a public road need not allege that the petitioners are free-holders of that road district and taxable therein for road purposes.

The board may themselves determine as a' fact, on the hearing of the petition, whether the petitioners are free-holders. And

An order of the board of supervisors recognizing the petition for the construction of a road and the accompanying bond as being such as are required by law, and ordering viewers to be appointed, is sufficient evidence of approval of the bond by the board. And

Surveys made by viewers need not appear on the records of the board of supervisors.

Under section 2685, Political Code, the notice required to be given by viewers to the owners of land need not be in writing. And

The order of the board of supervisors approving the report of the viewers, cannot be collaterally attacked on the ground that it was made upon insufficient evidence. Humboldt County v. Dinsmore, 75 Cal. 606.

The road overseer cannot complain of an obstruction as being a nuisance where the structure was erected prior to the laying out or opening of the road. The remedy in such case is prescribed by section 2695, Political Code, and not under section 2734. Smith v. Talbot, 77 Cal. 16; Smithers v. Fitch; 82 Cal. 158.

A county is not liable in damages for injury resulting to any person from the breaking of a bridge on a county road, and the allowance of a claim therefor, and an auditor's warrant thereon, are illegal and void. Bank v. Bartlett, 78 Cal. 303.

A finding of user of a road for eighteen months or two years, without a finding that such user was with the knowledge or consent of the owner of the land, does not show a dedication, or that such road became a highway. A user for five years must be established, unless it be also shown that the owner had knowledge and made no objection to the user as a public highway. Hope v. Barnett, 78 Cal. 10.

Where a defective bond is filed with a petition for the creation of an irrigation district, the board of supervisors may allow a new and sufficient bond to be filed, and may continue the hearing on the petition for that purpose. Central Ir. Dist. v. De Lappe, 79 Cal. 356-7.

A legalized toll-road or turnpike is a public highway, and becomes a free public highway upon the expiration of the toll franchise. People ex rel El Dorado Co. v. Davidson, 79 Cal. 168.

The owner of an incorporeal hereditament (toll-road franchise), though he may have no

« PreviousContinue »