People ex rel. Mayer v. San Luis Valley Land & Cattle Co., 12597.
| Decision Date | 23 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | 12597. |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. MAYER et al. v. SAN LUIS VALLEY LAND & CATTLE CO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Saguache County; J. C. Wiley, Judge.
Action by the People, on the relation of John S. Mayer and others against the San Luis Valley Land & Cattle Company. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
James P. Veerkamp, of Monte Vista, and B. A. Roloson, of Crestone for plaintiffs in error.
John I Palmer and Robert R. Tarbell, both of Saguache, for defendant in error.
These parties appear here in the same order as in the trial court and are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.
Defendant owns a tract of land in Saguache county over which is a road crossed at different places by its fences. At the points of intersection gates are installed. After having been long left unlocked, so that persons desiring to travel the road could open them and pass through, defendant has locked these gates, thus obliging those using the road from one direction to go a considerable distance out of their way. Plaintiffs, alleging that the road in question is a public highway, and that the locked gates are a nuisance, brought this action to abate that nuisance and enjoin its future maintenance. Defendant answered that the road was no public highway, that all the property in question was privately owned by it, and that it was acting within its rights. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and, to review a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs prosecute this writ.
The trial court found, among other things, that the road in question was first used about 1880, and had been continuously used since; that at various times the county authorities had expended money and labor on it; that the owners of the tract first installed some of the gates in 1809, and had installed others since as fences were constructed across it; that the road had been used for general purposes by many people living along it; that it use by the public was always subject to obstructions and limitations made by the owners of the land; that during no period of twenty years had such obstructions and limitations been absent; and that none of the gates were locked prior to 1927. These findings are amply supported by the evidence.
Plaintiffs contend their allegation of a public road is supported by: (1) Laws 1883, p. 251, § 1 (Gen. St. 1883, p. 868, § 2953); (2) 'Users and prescription.'
1. Said act of 1883 reads as follows: 'All roads and highways, except private roads heretofore established in pursuance of any law of this State or the Territory of Colorado, and roads dedicated to public use, that have not been vacated or abandoned, and such other roads as are now recognized and maintained by the corporate authorities of any county in this State, are hereby declared to be public highways.' Section 1.
This act was amended in 1891, in 1893, and again in 1921. See Laws 1891, p. 302, § 1; Laws 1893 p. 435, § 1 (Rev. St. 1908, p. 1364, § 5787); Laws 1921, p. 380, § 1 (C. L. 1921, p. 492, § 1243). If we read this act as punctuated, the road in question is excluded, because the most that could be said for it would be that, since it had never been dedicated, and was not then a road 'recognized and maintained by the corporate authorities of any county,' it is expressly excepted from operation of the act. If we insert a comma after the words 'private roads' in the first line of the section, which is probably the correct interpretation, it is still excluded, because in 1883 it could have been nothing more than a private road, and as such is expressly exempted from the operation of the act. If it be contended that even at the time of the passage of the statute conditions were such as to bring it within the classification 'such other roads as are now recognized and maintained by the corporate authorities of any county,' that contention has been answered by this court.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntyre v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, 02SC803.
...that the public must make some public claim of right in order to establish a prescriptive easement.6 Mayer v. San Luis Valley Land & Cattle Co., 90 Colo. 23, 26, 5 P.2d 873, 874 (1931). However, we did not fully address this requirement until 1984 when we discussed public prescriptive right......
-
Board of County Com'rs of Saguache County v. Flickinger
...to roadways by adverse use. Mahnke v. Coughenour, 170 Colo. 61, 67, 458 P.2d 747, 750 (1969); see People ex rel. Mayer v. San Luis Valley Land & Cattle Co., 90 Colo. 23, 5 P.2d 873 (1931). A party seeking to establish a road across private property as a public highway must demonstrate the f......
-
Simon v. Pettit
...by which the public can obtain title by adverse use. See Mahnke, 170 Colo. at 67, 458 P.2d at 750; People ex rel. Mayer v. San Luis Valley Land & Cattle Co., 90 Colo. 23, 5 P.2d 873 (1931). If the public uses a road adversely, under a claim of right, and without interruption for the statuto......
-
Board of County Com'rs for Garfield County, Colo. v. W.H.I., Inc., s. 92-1070
...to establish a public highway over the same by prescription." Simon, 651 P.2d at 420-41 (citing People ex rel. Mayer v. San Luis Valley Land & Cattle Co., 90 Colo. 23, 5 P.2d 873 (1931)). The United States asserts that the Board's 1929 resolutions provide the requisite notice that the publi......