People v. Davidson
Citations
- 79 Cal. 166
- 21 P. 538
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 687
Syllabus
<p>Toll-road—Public Highway—Dedication.—A legalized toll-road or turnpike is a public highway, and the act of constructing and opening such a road for use, followed by public user on payment of tolls, constitutes a dedication of it as a public highway. No formal acceptance by the public is required; it is enough that the public used the road for the purpose of travel.</p> <p>Id. — Expiration of Toll-road Franchise—Free Highway.—Under section 2619 of the Political Code, upon the expiration of a toll-road franchise the toll-road becomes a free public highway, and no- compensation is required te he paid to the toll-road owner. The owner, by construction of the road, with knowledge of the law, turned'it over to the use, of the public, and can claim no compensation other than such as was given by tolls during the existence of the franchise.</p> <p>Id.—Repeal ofFranohisb—Complaint by County—Injunction.—When a. toll-road franchise, granted by the El Dorado County board of auditors in 1878, is subsequently repealed by the hoard of supervisors of the county in 1886, the franchise expires by limitation; and the county may commence an action as complainant in the name of the people of the state, upon relation of the attorney-general, to have the road adjudged a public highway, and to enjoin the one claiming to be the owner of the road from demanding or taking toll from travelers thereon, or from interfering with or obstructing travel over the same by the public.</p>
Judges: Belcher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Blood v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-06-18· cited 14×
- State ex rel. Hines v. Scott County Macadamized Road Co.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1907-11-06· cited 14×
- Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1960-01-27· cited 9×
- McMullin v. LeitchCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-02-28· cited 8×
- Hall v. KauffmanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-03-19· cited 8×
- City of Cincinnati v. LeedsOhio Court of Appeals· 1914-04-25· cited 6×
- Cunningham v. PottsW.D. Washington· 1925-12-04· cited 6×
- Blood v. McCartyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-05-08· cited 4×
- Commissioner of Highways v. CobbMichigan Supreme Court· 1895-03-19· cited 4×
- People ex rel. Waugh v. Auburn & Yankee Jim's Turnpike Co.California Supreme Court· 1898-11-18· cited 2×
- Stony Hill Turnpike Road Co. v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-04-28
- City of Cincinnati v. LeedsCourt of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County· 1914-04-25
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.