Bd. of Com'rs of San Miguel County v. Friendly Haven Ranch Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 3228.,3228. |
| Citation | 257 P. 998,32 N.M. 342 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COM'RS OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTYv.FRIENDLY HAVEN RANCH CO. et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the provisions of section 2626, Code 1915, a public highway can be established either in pursuance of some law of the state, or by dedication, or by recognition and maintenance by the public authorities, none of which elements are present in this case. Mere permissive use of a private way by the public is not sufficient to establish a public highway by prescription.
Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; Armijo, Judge.
Action by the Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel County against the Friendly Haven Ranch Company and another for an injunction. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Under the provisions of section 2626, Code 1915, a public highway can be established either in pursuance of some law of the state, or by dedication, or by recognition and maintenance by the public authorities, none of which elements are present in this case. Mere permissive use of a private way by the public is not sufficient to establish a public highway by prescription.
A. T. Rogers, Jr., of East Las Vegas, for appellants.
Chester A. Hunker, Dist. Atty., and Geo. L. Robertson, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of East Las Vegas, for appellee.
The court below awarded a peremptory injunction against defendants, restraining them from obstructing by means of locked gates and fences, an alleged public road. The question is whether there exists in fact a public road at the place involved. It appears that the county authorities have never laid out a road, and have never assumed authority over any road at the place involved, and have never worked or improved the same. The court found that there is a road at the place in controversy, which has been traveled by the public generally for a period of more than 40 years. There is no finding as to the character of the use made of the road by the public, whether it was adverse under claim of right, or whether it was merely permissive. The proof shows that the road was privately constructed and maintained, and tends to show that the use made of the road by the neighbors and the public was permissive at all times. No dedication of the road to public use is shown. Under such circumstances, it would seem clear that no public road exists at the place involved.
Our statute (section 2626, Code 1915) defines what are public highways as follows:
“All roads and highways,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lovelace v. Hightower.
...highways.’ Sec. 58-101, N.M.Sts.1941. Highways can be established only as provided by the statute quoted (Board of County Com'rs v. Friendly Haven Ranch Co., 32 N.M. 342, 257 P. 998), unless they can be established by a prescriptive user. The Federal statute involved is as follows: ‘The rig......
-
Hall v. Lea County Elec. Co-op.
...order to come within the definition thereof under this section of our statutes, we stated in Board of Commissioners of San Miguel County v. Friendly Haven Ranch Co., 32 N.M. 342, 257 P. 998 (1927): 'It appears from this statute that we have three methods of establishing highways: They must ......
-
Norero v. Board of County Com'rs of Grant County, 9121
...method is by recognition of the road and maintenance of said road by the public authorities. Board of Com'rs of San Miguel County v. Friendly Haven Ranch Co. et al., 32 N.M. 342, 257 P. 998 (1927). See, also, hall v. Lea County Electric Cooperative, 78 N.M. 792, 438 P.2d 632 The first metho......