Page images
PDF
EPUB

as

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 estate in the land, shows a sufficient case in equity, to sustain an injunction, if his complaint avers possession and a right to the possession of a toll-road for the purpose of collecting tolls thereon, and that the county through its board of supervisors interferes with and obstructs the free use and enjoyment of his property by depriving him of his tolls. Welsh v. County of Plumas, 80 Cal. 339.

The board of supervisors are permitted in dividing the county into road districts, to include in them incorporated towns in which no work is actually done upon the streets by virtue of any law relating to street work [Stats. 1883, p. 20, amending Pol. Code, Sec. 2641), although the act of incorporation may authorize such work to be done, and in an election contest over the office of road overseer in a district including such town, it will be presumed that the town was rightly included by the order of the supervisors, in the absence of any showing that street work was actually done in pursuance of the incorporation act or some other law relating to street work in such municipality. Wristen v. Donlan, 79 Cal. 473. And see the case of Woodward v. Fruitvale S. Dist., 99 Cal. 554.

A deed of the premises, including a road across the same, by one who has by acts dedicated the said road as a highway, cannot operate as a revocation of the dedication after an acceptance and user by purchasers of lots and the public. And

When an owner subdivides his land into lots with an avenue running through the same, and sells lots along said avenue, and purchasers of lots use the avenue, and any one having occasion uses the same, and as to some of the lots, the avenue is the only way of ingress or egress, the plat of lots and avenue also being recorded, and the use of the avenue continued for three or four years, the act of dedication and acceptance of the avenue as a public highway is complete, and a purchaser of a portion of the avenue from the original owner will not be permitted to fence up or obstruct the same. Brown v. Stark, 83 Cal. 637.

A person who claims rights, under proceedings of the supervisors, to open a public highway, must show a strict compliance with all the provisions of the statute. If the notice which is required [Stats. 1862, p. 525] to be posted on the door of the supervisors' room is not proven, or if it is not proven to have specifically set forth the intermediate points through which the road is to pass, etc., the jurisdiction of the board to proceed will not be shown. And

In proving the establishment of a road which was petitioned for to be established in two counties, it is essential that there be shown a concurrence of the viewers with the petitioners as to the necessity of the road, or else the supervisors will have acquired no jurisdiction to open any part of the road. And

Under a contention of dedication of a road to public use, by five years user, the question

of highway or no highway is one of fact to be determined by the trial court. And

When trespasses already committed by a road overseer in removi:g obstructions from an alleged highway which has no legal existence would probably be indefinitely repeated, injunction may be granted to avoid a multiplicity of suits. And

The maintaining of gates across a roadway has always been considered as strong evidence of a mere license to the public to pass over the designated way, and in rebuttal of a dedication to public use. Smithers v. Fitch, 82 Cal. 157. See sections 2643, subdivision 9, amended 1893, [Stats. p. 114), also sections 2829, 2830 Political Code.

It is true that the right to collect tolls on a toll road is a franchise, and that tolls can only be collected after the board of supervisors has fixed the rates; but a board of supervisors has no authority to arbitrarily refuse to fix rates, and thereby destroy the value of the toll road property. The board may be pelled by mandamus to fix such rates. Volcano Cañon R. Co. v. Placer Co., 88 Cal. 634; Stony Hill T. R. Co. v. Supervisors, 88 Cal. 632.

A county may sue in its own name to recover taxes levied upon a road district. And

Highways include bridges. [Political Code 2618.] And

If it be conceded that proceedings for the abandonment of a public road should be instituted by petition, still it is held that no bond

com

« PreviousContinue »