Skip to main content
· 1/15/1876

Town of Old Town v. Dooley

Citations

  • 81 Ill. 255

Syllabus

<p>1. Highway—rights of land owner as to easement. By the location of a highway over a party’s land, the public acquire only an easement, with the rights incident thereto, while he retains the fee simple -in the land taken, and the exclusive ownership of everything connected with the soil for every purpose not incompatible with the public right of way, and he may make any use of the land to which it can be applied, and all profits which can be derived from it, consistently with the enjoyment of the easement.</p> <p>2. Same—does not give right to use spring. The right of way existing in the public over land as a highway, is only a right of passage, and not a right to get water either in streams or springs on the soil of the land-owner.</p> <p>A spring in a public road is not a part of the highway, and its use is not an incident to the use of the same.</p> <p>3. Same—consent to join fence to bridge, need not be in writing. The statute giving the owner of land bordering on a public road the right to connect his road fence on either or both banks of a stream or body of water to any bridge over the stream, or to any abutment, etc., thereof, upon the consent of the commissioners of highways, except in certain cases, does not require that a record shall be made of such consent, or that it shall be given in writing, but it may be in parol only.</p> <p>4. Same—consent to join fence to bridge conclusive evidence. The consent of the commissioners of highways for a land owner to join his fence to a bridge over a stream, is conclusive evidence that such fence in the highway does not interfere with the use of the right of way by the public.</p> <p>5. Same—-fence to bridge, whether built under the direction of road authorities. Where the commissioners of highways, after fences have been built connecting with a bridge, examine the same and are satisfied with them, this will be the same as if they were built under their direction, and answers the requirements of the law.</p> <p>6. S

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • pp. 552, 553 of 166 Ind., pp. 1042, 1043 of 77 N. E.
  • pp. 552, 553 of 166 Ind., pp. 1042, 1043 of 77 N.E.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scholfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.