Wragg v. Penn Township
Citations
- 94 Ill. 11
Syllabus
<p>1. Statute—repeal by implication. The repeal of statutes by implication is not favored by the courts, and unless the two statutes can not be reconciled they must be allowed to stand.</p> <p>2. Same—as to penalty for obstructing highway—whether repealed. Section 68 of chapter 121, Revised Statutes of 1874, entitled “ Roads,” and which provides for a penalty for obstructing a road, etc.,' in favor of the town in which the offence is committed, is not repealed by section 221 of the Criminal Code, subsequently enacted, which provides a different punishment for the same offence by indictment, and a party obstructing a public highway may be punished under both statutes.</p> <p>3. Criminal law—double punishment for same act. While a man may not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence, yet when his act constitutes two separate offences, one against the laws of the United States, and the other against the laws of the State, or against the State law and also against an ordinance of a city or town, he may be tried, convicted and punished under both laws, and the legislature may make the same act, as, the obstruction of a highway, punishable as an offence against the town in which the act is committed, and also as an offence against the public generally, by indictment for a nuisance, and the accused will not be in jeopardy twice for the same offence, but only once for each offence.</p> <p>4. Highway—evidence of dedication. In order to constitute a dedication of land for a public highway, it is not essential that the intention be evidenced by words, either written or spoken. If the acts of the party indicate an intention to dedicate the land to the public use, it is sufficient, and if. the dedication is accepted by the public, as by use and travel, it is complete. It is true the acts may be 'explained by an agreement or other circumstances rebutting the intent to dedicate, but if the acts are unexplained they will prove a dedication.</p> <p>5. Same—vacated if not opened
Judges: Dickey, McLean
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- City of Chicago v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1894-10-29· cited 45×
- City of Chicago v. Union Ice Cream Manufacturing Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1911-12-21· cited 43×
- Miles v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1998-04-06· cited 28×
- Hood v. Von GlahnSupreme Court of Georgia· 1892-01-11· cited 27×
- Van Buren v. TexarkanaSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1890-06-07· cited 19×
- State v. FourcadeSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1893-05-15· cited 19×
- Robbins v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1880-05-18· cited 16×
- Southern Railway Co. v. City of DanvilleSupreme Court of Virginia· 1940-04-08· cited 10×
- Arhart v. StarkSuperior Court of Buffalo· 1894-02-15· cited 9×
- City of Decatur v. SchlickIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-06-24· cited 9×
- City of Ottawa v. YentzerIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-03-28· cited 4×
- Village of Winnetka v. SinnettAppellate Court of Illinois· 1933-10-25· cited 3×
- Nicholson v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1888-05-25· cited 2×
- Ohio, Indiana & Western Railway Co. v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1889-02-02· cited 1×
- Day v. City of ClintonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1880-06-29
- Mettler v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1890-05-28
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Waldo v. WallaceIndiana Supreme Court· 1859-06-25· cited 59×
- Mayor v. AllaireSupreme Court of Alabama· 1848-06-15· cited 48×
- Gardner v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1858-04-15· cited 20×
- Bennett v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1863-01-15· cited 13×
- Ambrose v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1855-06-07· cited 12×
- Green v. GreenIllinois Supreme Court· 1864-04-15· cited 6×
- Berry v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1865-01-15· cited 6×
- Topper v. SnowIllinois Supreme Court· 1858-04-15· cited 5×
- Fant v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1867-09-15· cited 2×
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.