The record-union., 1894-01-30
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

Supervisors Can Vacate a Road-As-
siGnees Must Record Assignments.
The Supreme Court has rendered an
opinion in the case of Leyee District No
9, appellant, VS.. l.. p. Farmer ct al, re-
spondents, an action brought against the
Board of Supervisors Of Sutter County as
individuals, two overseers Of road dis
tricts and others who were owners of
lands through which certain piece Of
road ran, to enjoin them from closing up
or vacating the road.
The appellant is a corporation formed
to maintain q levee along a portion OF
Feather River to prevent overhows, and
part OF the road being contiguous TO the
levees the complaint alleged that the road
is the only inlet or outlet TO the levee tor
the purpose Of protecting it, and that the
appellants we're threatening to close and
ploW up the road. ON the trial the de-
iendants had the findings and judgment
in their favor, and. the plaintiff appeals.
Appellants argued that in the change
of road two disconnected objects were
joined in the proceeding and order of the
board vacating it, and that they could not
properly be joined. They also argued
that the closing of the road was u damage
| to their property, and that the right
which an abuttor enjoys as one of the
public IN common with other citizens is
not property i'll such sense as to entitle
him to compensation on the discontinue
ance of the road or street, but with re-
spect to the right which he has in the
highway as means of enjoying the free
and convenient use of his abutting prop
erty, it is radically different, for this right
is a special one.
If this special right is of value, and it is
of value ii it increases the worth of his
|
matter whether it be Of great or small
value, and the vacation and discontinue
ance OF a street or road is a taking Of
property and cannot be lawful without
compensation to the owner.
The commissioners held differently,
and thought that great hardship if old
roads could not be now vacated or
changed to meet the present changed sit
uation without cOmpensating those who
abutLed on it. The creation of highways by
use or under the statute, says the court,
creates an easement for the benefit OF the
public for such time only as the public
necessities and convenience may require,
and creates no covenant or obligation in
favor of an abutter that it shall always
exist.
The judgment appealed from was con-
Grmed.
A SAN JOAQUIN CASE.
L
case of c. e. Watkins, appellant, vs. r. Z.
NYilhoit, B. F. Langford and Nj. e. Bry-
ant, respondents.
The action was in the nature of cred
itor's bill in equity to subject property in
the hands or under the control of Wilhoit
and Langford to the payment OF judg-
ment against Bryant, in favor of the de-
fendant A demurrer to the complaint
having been sustained and the plaintiff
having declined to amend his complaint,
judgment passed for the defendants.
Plaintiff recovered Judgment against
Bryant in February, 1890, for 81, ,342 90, on
| promissory note given by him in Janu-
ary 1885. In the meantime, in 1856, Bry-
ant turned over all his property to Viii
holt and Langford in trust for the benefit
of his creditors, and they sold it for an
aggregated sum of SlS,0 600, and refused to
pay Bryant's judgment out OF that sum.
! The deed of trust was never properly re-
corded as provided by law.
Respondents demurred to appellants
complaint and the court below sustained
the demurrer, and appellant appealed.
After long and exhaustive review of
the arguments the Supreme Court re-
verses the judgment and directs the lower
court to overrule the demurrer.
The cases of Duffy VS.. Wilhoit, Little
hale VS.. Wilhoit and Tully VS.. WiIhoit,
for the same reasons We're disposed of in
the same way.