Purvis v. Busey
This suit was filed in the circuit court of Monroe County, in equity, on May 29, 1952, by Fred Busey against Savage Purvis. The purpose of ‘ the bill was' to secure a decree enjoining the respondent from obstructing an alleged public road.
Whеre a road' is shown to be a public .road, a private individual is entitled to an injunction against encroachment or obstruction thereon when he has sustained special damages different, not merely in degrеe, but in kind from that suffered by the public at large. Sandlin v. Blanchard,
The averments of the bill were not challenged by demurrer.' They were sufficient to give the bill equity. See Rudolph v. City of Elyton,
Submission .for final decree was on the •pleadings and on evidence taken before a commissioner. The trial court rendered a decree wherein the relief prayed for was granted./ From that decree the respondent below, /Savagе Purvis, has appealed to this court.
The record shows that the appellant, Savage Purvis, to whom we will refer hereafter as the respondent, is the owner of forty acres of land, being the NW 34 of the SE 34 of Seсtion 23, Township 6, Range 6, in Monroe County. The appellee, Fred Busey, to whom we will refer hereafter as the complainant, owns the forty acres immediately east of and adjoining the respondent’s
For the purpose of a better understanding of the issues presented by this appeal, we are including in the opinion а rough sketch of the locus of the dispute. This sketch was not introduced in evidence; it is not drawn to scale; it is merely our understanding of the general location of the roads involved and their surroundings as shown by the pleаdings and the evidence.
The matters depicted in the sketch set out above are without dispute except in one respect. We have accepted the testimony adduced on behalf of the сomplainant that Road B, after it turns southward, adjoins the complainant’s tract no. 1. The testimony as it bears on this question is in conflict. Neither the complainant nor the respondent introduced any survey or the testimоny of a surveyor as to the exact boundary lines of Road B. According to the respondent and two of his sons, the eastern boundary of Road B after it turns southward is from twelve to twenty feet west of the complainаnt’s tract no. 1. But each of them admit that for a period of thirty-five years or more persons have used Road B as a means of entering the complainant’s tract no. 1. On the other hand, complainant and а number of apparently disinterested witnesses testified that Road B is situated as shown in the above sketch. Among those witnesses was a nephew of the respondent who some years back had lived on the comрlainant’s tract no. 1 and had used Road B as a means of ingress and egress.
This-litigation arises out of the fact that on or about May 12, 1952, the respondent erected a fence in two places across Road B.
It is clear from the evidence that respondent recognized that Road B had at one time
We have no evidence before us as to how, by whom or by what authority Road B was originally laid out, although it is without dispute that it was at one time a part of a county public road between the two towns mentioned above.
We think the evidеnce shows that Road B is a part of a curve which the county áuthorities eliminated approximately eighteen years prior to the time this controversy arose. It was evidently at the time the curve was eliminated that the part of Road A which lies southeast of the point where Roads A and B connect was constructed. As far as we can determine from the record, the remainder of Road A, which is the present рublic road between Perdue Hill and Frisco City, had crossed respondent’s land in the manner indicated on the sketch for a period of at least thirty-five years.
As far as this record discloses, neither the county nor any abutting landowner has proceeded under the provisions of Chapter 3, Title 56, Code 1940, to close and vacate Road B or any other part of the eliminated curve.
' However, we understand the evidenсe to show without dispute that since the county made the alterations referred to above it has not treated or maintained Road B or the other parts of the eliminated curve as a county road. Mоst of the eliminated curve which lies south of the respondent’s land has been closed and put in pasture or in cultivation.
The evidence shows, however, that the respondent never attempted to appropriate Road B to his own use or to place a barrier across it at any place until on, to .wit, May 12, 1952. For a period of approximately eighteen years the complainant, his tenants and any member of the public who had occasion to do so had used Road B as a means of getting to complainant’s tract no. .1 from Road A.
We understand the evidence to show that at the time the alterations in the road were made there were fences on each side of Road B and we further construe the evidence to show that those fences still remain. Although the county authorities have done no work оn Road B since the alteration, the evidence shows that Road B has continued to be a well-defined way, eighteen to twenty feet wide, on which vehicles could pass.
The general rule is to the effect thаt the public acquires an easement only in highways, the fee of the land remaining in the owner, subject to the easement. 39 C.J.S., Highways, § 136, page 1071. It is also the general rule that when a highway is abandoned the land becomеs discharged of the servitude and. the absolute title to the land covered by the highway reverts to the owner of the fee except where the fee to the highway has passed to the public — 39 C.J.S., Highways, § 137, pages 1073-1074. See Elliott on Roads and Streets, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, §§ 1190 and 1191.
It is on these principles that the respondent justifies his action in placing the obstructions across Road B. In other words, the respondent says Road B was at one time a public road but it was abandoned as such and as owner of the fee he had the right to treat Road B as his property.
But the burden was upon the respondent of showing an abandonment by clear and satisfactory evidence. Richey v. Shephard,
Nor does the failure of the county authorities to keep the road in repair necessarily work an abandonment. Sterlane v. Fleming, supra; Maire v. Kruse,
The fact that the part of the eliminated curve immediately south of respondent’s land has been destroyed results in Road B being a cul-de-sac. Being a cul-de-sac, the general public would have and has had but little occasion to use it, but as shown above Road. B has been used continuously up until May 12, 1952, by the complainant and his tenants and has been open to such use as the public- chose to make of it. The mere fact that' Road B forms a cul-de-sac does not deprive it of its character as a public highway. Foster v. Bullock, supra; Sterlane v. Fleming, supra.
We are of the opinion that the respondent failed to meet the burden which was upon him to show an abandonment of Road B.
In Harbison v. Campbell,
Respondent further cоntends that complainant has not shown such special injury as would authorize him to maintains the action. In view of our finding that, complainant’s tract no. 1 abuts upon Road'. B, this contention cannot be sustained-ingress and egress to and from complainant’s tract no. 1 was materially obstructed', and interrupted. Complainant, therefore,, has shown such special injury as entitles; him to maintain this action.
It is argued that complainant has' аnother means of entering his tract no. 1 to which Road B leads, inasmuch as that tract and the other tracts of land owned by' complainant which are described above all adjoin and that complainant- could entey his property at a point where Road A crosses his tract no. 3 and from that point proceed to his tract no. 1 over his own, land. This would be a circuitous route-covering some distance. As to when special -damages, are shown -by the obstruction of a highway to one who owns property abutting on the highway, different in kind' from those sustained by the general public,, is a question not always free from difficulty.. But this court is committed to the rule that if the obstruction forces the owner of the-land out of his direct, public street or road into a circuitous route in his commerce and intercourse with the outside world, this is a special injury to him nоt suffered by the general -inhabitants of the state, county or city. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Johnson,
The decree of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.