Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-28

do not understand any OF these cases 10 20
TO the extent OF holding that a highway
which has been dedicated 20 the public
mny not be- accepted la IT, behalf In other
ways than by affirmative action on the
part of the municipal authorities nnd we
understand several Of them 10 Indicate
quito the contrary view La Morthlugtuu
vs. Wade supra II f. said: ~ road not
originally established under the statute may
adoption as such 10y the county commits
sloucrs with the assent of the owner or ny
prescription. A ROAD MAY ALSO Bls.
THE PUBLIC HAVE TIE RIGHT TO
USE TT liN tAilON............No
net OF amy owner Wna proven which tomb
Cd GO show nm Intent 10 dedicate u To the
use of the public In thll state the mere
uCpulcsencc of the owner or uiuclused
land In the use by the public OF "a road
over IL is not sufficient evidence ~ y dcdl'
cntion," An la hamthun W., Huffman,
aS cllns SOB, Il ~ said "a highway may
be created by dedication or Donation los
the owner OF his lands for that purpose
when such dedication has been accepted
or recognized as % highway by tho proper
public authorities OR WHEN TliE SAME
HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND USED AS
SUCH by THE PUBLIC Also see llau-
way VS. Lee, 40 TcXus, 100 and OHYald VH.
Grenct. 90 Texas, %. The authorities out
side OF this state as tO what Is necessary
10 constitute an acceptance OF a highway
dedicated to the public are not M all In
harmony, but Mr. Elliott In his work on
rOndR aud streets D. ~ says; "ihM Nl'
tics, Rnd Il may now be considered us
the prevailing opinion, that an acceptance
may be Implied nom % general or long
continued use by the public ns Of right"
tn auatnin which he elites a great number
OF cases which seem 20 support his con 'lus'
Ion,
In this case we are OF opinion that there
WAS some evidence which raised the issue
ns To- whether or not this roud had boon
dedicated 70 me public ny he owners oil
| tha ndlolning land prior 20 the conveyance
by appellant and we are OF opinion that
th2 Churgc of the court was too restricted
in recurring an acceptance or such dcdiya-
lion 10 Rave been evidenced hy some ailir-
native net on the part OF the counts or
/ city authorities Tho Charge clearly con-
ycyed to the Jury me idea that ths
action unOn the Part 1f the commit s5iuncrs'
! court or the city council, anu We think
'ihc court also gave tho following in
/ 8uuction Go the jury, "if you fud thnt NJ
| the time the pltintf conveyed 10 }. NJ.
/ Lindsay Tor the railroad the tyc-clghts OF
/ nn acrc described ~ the deed iron, Lindsay
I 90 defendant which has been introduced
/ W evidence before you the plaintiff know
| the purpose for which the railroad lntend
J I'd 90 use said land ana knew that aucl
/ use would result Ia the Obstruction OF
said r0nd, then yQu WIN find ful Che detcn
| dmti mud even though ygn ahnuld holiev,
that such road was q public nigh NAy, hQi
| unless plaintiff knew The purpose for which
| defendant intended 10 use said laut
| mud knew that such use would ohstruc
claiming damages" We think this charg'
| very clearly states the law applicable [,
this branch of the case.
Appellee contends that appellant by hh
deed would be cstopped even without th'
knowledge on his part required hy th
| charge and thai the Judgment OF tho COur
| below hc affirmed for this reason rcgArdlca
Of nll other questions. but we cannot ngre
| With it in this construction Of the deed
a deed 90 land fronting mon public hlggh
way ordinarily conveys 10 the grantee IN
land Go the middle OF the road subject &
tho easement, and we think n VIII D
found that by FAR the greater number o
these deeds 10 Describing the land convene
| call for the line OF the owner without pcr
haps IN any way abiding 90 the highway
and ia such cases We are not prepared I
| Hold that the grnntor would by his dee
he estopped from denying the right OF nj
| Qrnntoc 20 close the highway WoOlidg
| Vs Npstlnnd county. 20 Texas. $50, ia
vs. ChWubers, O2 Texas. 100; Mitchell NJ
II IA addition % hlsdeed the gnntur know
| that the pUrCh0spr rs acquiring the Ian
under the impression that there Is no hiei
way aud with tho intention Of approprli
tence ~ such highway und with such know
edge receives and appronriatea the pul
| chase money FOR the lRud lac would u
astopped 20 deny the right OF HIS granite
10 use II for such purposes
II seems TO be well settled that eyidcnc
| ~ general reputation "a admissible on N
question as 20 whether or not q higllwG
a public or private. J GresnlVaf on Ey
~ Conn. POO. which Is approved Ia 90
~. the state ~ Texas. :.
III rs unnecessary Tor rs 10 decide wheth,
| or not the evidence 81 enpelpea witness,
eomplalged OF by appelan! Ma@ strict
VIII hardly be- presented Ia the snmo for
| upon another trial
Nc see no objection to the county iuas