Golahar v. Gates
| Decision Date | 31 January 1855 |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 236 |
| Parties | GOLAHAR, Plaintiff in Error, v. GATES, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A party who is prosecuted, (under sections 59 and 60 of article one of the act concerning roads and highways, R. C. 1845,) for obstructing a public way over his own land, may show that his property has not been condemned for public use in the manner prescribed by law.
This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace in Morgan county, by Golahar, road overseer, to the use of his road district, against Gates, to recover the statutory penalty for obstructing a county road. The cause was taken by appeal to the Circuit Court, and afterwards, by change of venue, to the Circuit Court of Moniteau county.
At the trial, the plaintiff read in evidence a transcript of the record of proceedings in the Morgan county court, at the May term, 1850, consisting of the report of the commissioners appointed at a previous term to view and locate the road, together with the approval thereof by the court and the order for the establishment of the road. The commissioners, in their report, after designating the route of the road, state that it The record states that the report “was read in open court, and no objections being made in a legal form, said report was approved and ordered to be recorded, and said road be declared a public route and highway, and that it be opened twenty feet wide as the law directs.” The clerk of the county court testified that the defendant was present when the commissioners made their report, and objected to the establishment of the road, but the court overruled his objections and he excepted. There was evidence that the road, as opened, ran through defendant's land, and that he closed the same up by building a rail fence across it.
The court instructed the jury that the defendant, in this action, was liable, if the road was established by the judgment of the Morgan county court, without regard to any informality or irregularity in the proceedings, and refused a contrary instruction. After a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant prosecuted this writ of error.
Edwards & Parsons, for plaintiff in error, relied upon Cooper County v. Geyer. (19 Mo.)SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
Golahar, as road...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isaac Walker's Adm'r v. DeAver
...O'Flaherty v. Sutton, 49 Mo. 583. A judgment against one who had no notice of the proceeding is void.-- Smith v. Ross, 7 Mo. 63; Galaher v. Gates, 20 Mo. 236. SAMUEL REBER, for appellants: The record of a judgment against the covenantee by the holder of the encumbrance is not evidence of th......
-
In re Estate of Fritch
... ... parties, and each party to the action or matter in ... controversy must have an opportunity to be heard. Golahar ... v. Gates, 20 Mo. 236; Roach v. Burnes, 33 Mo ... 319; Anderson v. Brown, 9 Mo. 638. (B) And where ... property rights of the parties are to ... ...
-
The State v. Transue
...no evidence of dedication and as the land was not used as a road for the space of ten years it could not become a road by user. In Golahar v. Gates, 20 Mo. 236, the proceedings open a highway were held void because the way over defendant's land had not been condemned for public use in the m......
-
Payne v. Lott
... ... the defendant will be wholly unavailing. Authorities supra; ... Freeman on Judg., sec. 127; Golahan v. Gates, 20 Mo ... 236. (3) The judgment in the back tax case being invalid, the ... subsequent proceedings, including the sale of the land and ... ...