Galbraith v. Littiech

Citations

• 73 Ill. 209

Syllabus

<p>1. Highway—presumption as to legality in laying out. When an order of the county court is shown establishing a road, upon a report signed by two of the viewers, and the report does not show that the third viewer failed or refused to act, it will be presumed he was present and so acted with the other two, and this presumption can not be overcome by parol evidence.</p> <p>3. Same—viewer becoming member of county court. When the report of two viewers, appointed to view and locate a road, is approved by the county court, and the road ordered to be opened, the proceeding will not be invalidated from the fact that one of the viewers, who had no personal interest, was elected a member of the court, and joined in the order of approval.</p> <p>3. Same—marking by stakes. The validity of a road laid out by the county court does not depend upon the planting of stakes. Their only use is to indicate the line, until it becomes plain by travel or otherwise. The location of the road may be shown without such marks.</p> <p>4. Same—abandonment for new route. A party can not, by his own act, relocate a road. That can only be done by those having the power by law. The fact that a party has given other ground for a road, without proof of acceptance by the public authorities, will not show an abandonment of the old line.</p> <p>5. Same—limitation does not run against the public. As laches does not estop, or the Statute of Limitations run against the public, it follows that a mere non-user of a highway will not prevent the people from asserting their rights as against one obstructing the same.</p> <p>6. Where a public highway has been abandoned for a great length of time, and another road has been opened and traveled by the public, and recognized by the public authorities having charge of the roads, and repaired by them as such, an abandonment may be presumed.</p>