Grube v. Nichols

Citations

• 36 Ill. 92

Syllabus

<p>1. Highway — how right acquired Try (he public. A public highway may be acquired by condemnation under the statute, by grant from the owner, and after twenty years user by the public a grant will be presumed; and by dedication to and acceptance by the public,' which may be inferred from travel by the public, and repairs by the proper public authorities.</p> <p>. 2. UrsmuOTiosr—should inform the jury as to the law. An instruction which ignores all of these modes of acquiring the right of way, and informs the jury that the public may acquire such a right, simply by the public having traveled over the ground for eight or nine years without objection, is erroneous, and should not have been given. Such an instruction takes from the consideration of the jury the question, whether the owner of the soil intended to dedicate the road, or whether the public had accepted it if he did.</p> <p>3. Same. An instruction which simply informs the jury, that if the road is proved they should find for the plaintiff, in a suit for its obstruction, is erroneous, as it must be proved to have been obstructed, before such a recovery can be had.</p> <p>4. Same. It is objectionable in framing an instruction, to select an isolated fact in the evidence, and call the special attention of the jury to its consideration, as it tends to give such fact an undue importance, and to lead the jury to underrate other facts; still if such an instruction is given, the court would not reverse for that reason alone.</p> <p>5. Highway—abandonment, what amowntsto. Where it appears that the public have ceased to travel a road, and have acquired another which accommodates public travel, a jury would be warranted in presuming an abandonment of the first road. And it is error to instruct the jury that the new road must accommodate the public equally as well as the former road. Whether it does or not is for those having charge of public roads to determine.</p>