The general statements, grouping and to some extent defining the power of the board, cannot be held to place the board above the procedure elsewhere prescribed, which often very materially limits the jurisdiction and power apparently conferred by the general language of subdivision 4, section 25, act of 1889. The beginning of the section says the power is to be exercised under such restrictions and limitations as are prescribed by law. As to establishing toll roads reference is had to sections 2779, 2789 and succeeding sections Political Code; also Civil Code sections 512 et seq. Toll roads are public roads.

Blood v. Woods, 95 Cal. 85.

In condemnation proceedings for a "private road," the court must find separately the value of the land sought to be condemned, and the improvements thereon, the damages to the remaining land by reason of the severance, and the benefits which will accrue to the remaining land by reason of opening the road. Otherwise the judgment of condemnation is void. Butte County v. Boydston, 64 Cai. 110.

Navigable streams of the state are public highways, and any unauthorized obstruction placed therein by any individual is a public nuisance. People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. 139; Political Code section 2348.

The value of the land sought to be condemned should be determined, as of the date. when the summons issued. And—

Under section 1241 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before any steps can be taken in the

courts for the condemnation of private property for road purposes, the board of supervisors must determine the "necessity" of the use, its public character, the route and termini of the road, the land necessary therefor, and the apparent ownership thereof. And

Section 1248 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing the mode of ascertaining damages, requires the value of the land to be taken, and all improvements thereon pertaining to the realty to be valued, but does not require the improvements to be assessed separately from the land. And

The act of February 28, 1883, revising the road law did not abrogate existing road districts. Tehama County v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 67.

The acquisition of a right of way by prescription is not affected by the fact that the adverse users occasionally, when the ground was soft, turned out of the way at a certain point, and made several distinct tracks there. And

A right of way of necessity may be acquired over the land of another, although the road to which the way leads is not a county road, but a mere by-road open to the public. Cheney v. O'Brien, 69 Cal. 200.

A county is under no common law obligation to keep roads and bridges in repair. Even when the legislature enjoins upon corporations. of this character the duty to make and repair roads, streets or bridges, and confers the power to levy taxes therefor, the general tenor of the decisions is to treat this as a public and not a

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 by 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.

pen

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 alty 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