Bishop v. Hawley
Decision Date | 11 August 1925 |
Docket Number | 1228 |
Citation | 33 Wyo. 271,238 P. 284 |
Parties | BISHOP v. HAWLEY [*] |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
APPEAL from District Court, Natrona County; ROBERT R. ROSE, Judge.
Action by M. L. Bishop against Robt. D. Hawley for the abatement of a fence obstructing an alleged highway. From a judgment granting less than the relief prayed, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Marvin L. Bishop, Jr., John H. Casey and F. M. Perkins for appellant.
The question involved is whether Sec. 2477 U. S. R. S., (U.S.C S. Sec. 4919) permits a dedication by user of a road across the public domain of a greater width than 100 ft.; we assume that the term, "public," as used in the Act includes owners of live stock; the authorities have construed this Act of Congress as one permitting a degree of flexibility suitable to the needs of the using public; Yakima County v. Conrad (Wash.) 66 P. 411; Wallowa County v. Wade, 72 P. 794; McRose v Battyer, 22 P. 393; Hamp v. Co., 172 P. 869; a width of 100 ft. would not meet the requirements of the public using the road for trailing stock.
W. H Patten for respondent.
The establishment of a driveway for stock is a statutory remedy, and not a common law right; 2987 C. S. the claim for damages is remote; State v. Buckner, 98 Am. Dec. 83; Chap. 100, Laws 1921 limited the establishment of highways across the public domain, at any rate, until the County Commissioners have complied with the Act; see also 29 C. J. 627; Van Buskirk v. Bond, 96 P. 1103; only a well defined line of travel can be accepted by the public under the Act of Congress; 29 C. J. 373; Bayard v. Oil Co., 63 P. 614; People v. Alexander, 92 P. 202; Vol. 1. Elliott on Roads, page 225; the width cannot be broader than the use; the statutory or used width in the neighborhood is often adopted; Vol. 1. Elliott, page 222; 2987 C. S. Meservey v. Gulliford, 93 P. 780; 37 Cyc. 40; Whiteside v. Summers, 90 P. 674; the term, "public," as used in the Act means public generally and not a specific class like teachers, lawyers or trappers of the community; sheep and cattle men are a specific class; under the laws of Wyoming the width of highways is fixed at not less than 60 ft. nor more than 100 ft.; roads of this character should be confined to the statutory width.
M. L. Bishop, plaintiff and appellant, claiming that R. D. Hawley, defendant and respondent, had constructed and maintained a fence across a highway, brought this action for damages sustained by the obstruction of the highway, to abate the fence as a nuisance, and to enjoin the defendant from obstructing the highway in the future. The defendant was the owner of a homestead entered and patented under the public land laws. The fence enclosed the homestead across which the plaintiff claimed the highway had been established by use by the public before the entry of the homestead. The plaintiff alleged that the highway across defendant's lands was 500 feet in width. The defendant denied the existence of the highway. The case was tried without a jury. The court found the issues in favor of the plaintiff, but held that the highway was only 100 feet wide instead of 500 feet as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals, alleging that upon the facts found the court's decision as to the width of the highway was error. That is the only question presented here.
The evidence has not been brought up, and there is nothing in the record to show that either party requested the court to state its conclusions of fact separately from its conclusions of law. The district court's decision, however, is evidenced by a "decree," which contains statements of conclusions of fact and law, but without any recitation to show that it was intended to state them separately. The following quotation from the decree contains all the conclusions that seem to have any bearing on the question of the width of the highway:
In quoting from the decree we have italicized the parts that are most important on the point presented by this appeal.
The act of Congress referred to in the decree (Sec. 2477 U.S. Rev. Stat. passed in 1866) provides that, --"The right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public use, is hereby granted." This act was considered in Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black, 25 Wyo. 109, 165 P. 518, and the same case on petition for rehearing, 25 Wyo. 416, 171 P. 267, where it was held that a right of way granted by this law may be accepted by the public by continued use of a road as a highway for such a length of time and under such circumstances as clearly to indicate an intention to accept the grant. As pointed out in that case, it is not a question of establishment of a highway by prescription or adverse user, but by acceptance of a grant. The grant by the federal government is considered a "dedication" which becomes effective on its acceptance, that is, when the highway is "constructed" or established by user by the public.
In 1919, after the decision of Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black, the legislature passed an act (c. 112, Laws 1919, Sec. 2977, C. S. 1920) making it the duty of the Boards of County Commissioners, prior to January 1, 1922, to determine what roads, not theretofore officially established and recorded, "are necessary or important for the public use as permanent roads, and to cause such roads to be recorded" etc., and declaring that "no other roads shall be highways unless and until lawfully established as such by official authority." By an amendment in 1921 the time for action by the Boards of County Commissioners was extended to January 1, 1924. Ch. 100, Laws 1921. This act is called to our attention by the brief of counsel for defendant, but we think we need not consider it for the purpose of our decision in this case. The defendant has not appealed, and we therefore deem it unnecessary to inquire whether the findings are sufficiently conclusive of the issue as to the existence of the highway, or would have supported a finding that there was no highway. The case, as it comes to us, requires an examination of the findings of the trial court for the purpose only of determining whether the facts found fail to support the decision that the highway through defendant's lands is of the width of one hundred feet.
Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black presented no question as to the width of a highway established under the congressional grant by public travel and use, and we find the point discussed in no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
So. Utah Wilderness v. Bureau of Land Management, No. 04-4071.
...v. Hightower, 50 N.M. 50, 168 P.2d 864, 866-67 (1946); Leach v. Manhart, 102 Colo. 129, 77 P.2d 652, 653 (1938); Bishop v. Hawley, 33 Wyo. 271, 238 P. 284, 285 (1925); State ex rel. Dansie v. Nolan, 58 Mont. 167, 191 P. 150, 152-53 (1920); Sprague v. Stead, 56 Colo. 538, 139 P. 544, 545-46 ......
-
Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Board of County Com'rs, County of Rio Arriba
...(trial court's finding of 100-foot width, rather than 2,000 feet used for driving and grazing sheep, affirmed); Bishop v. Hawley, 33 Wyo. 271, 238 P. 284, 286-87 (1925) (width of 100 feet upheld despite claim that width of 500 feet to a quarter mile used for driving livestock). Mere conveni......
-
Lovelace v. Hightower.
...T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Richter, 20 N.M. 278, 148 P. 478, L.R.A.1916F, 969; Moulton v. Irish, 67 Mont. 504, 218 P. 1053; Bishop v. Hawley, 33 Wyo. 271, 238 P. 284; Although there is authority which holds that it is a grant in presenti, taking effect when accepted as of the date of the grant (1......
-
Mitchell Irr. Dirstrict v. Whiting, Com'r
... ... 201; Geer v. Sibley, 23 P ... 220. A finding contradictory to evidence is not authorized ... Allen v. Lewis, 26 Wyo. 85; Bishop v ... Hawley, 33 Wyo. 271. Failure to make findings upon all ... material issues is reversible error. 64 C. J. 1232; ... Cheesbrough v. Jensen, ... ...