Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-06-05
". VA, MONDAY, JUNE 5. 1899
TWO IMPORTANT CASES
Recently Decided by The Supreme
Court of the State.

TOWN OF WESTON is OF M
PORTANCE TO THE PEOPLE OF
EVERY CITY AND TOWN-THE
SYLLABUS-THE CASE OF MIL
LER v. THE STATE BOARD OF
AGRICULTURE.
Special to the Register.
CHARLESTON, w. Va, June A
decision rendered by the West Vir-
ginia Supreme Court recently in the
case of Err. Ralston against the town
OF Weston is of general Importance to
the people of municipalities throughout
the State. This controversy came into
court over the question of the right of
the plaintiff to the possession of a
strip of land 1871 feet by 721a feet, be-
ing part of Water street, as originally
laid off and dedicated to public use for
a street at very early date by Max
well & Stringer, who sold lot u, ad-
jaeent to such strip, to those under
whom the plaintiff claims title While
the plaintiff raised the question of dedi-
cation and acceptance, as is usual in
similar cases, his reliance was on
ADVERSE POSSESSION
under claim of title for much longer
period than the statute of limitations.
The court reversed the decree of the
lower court and remanded the case to
the lower court with the direction that
the plaintiffs injunction be dissolved
and that mandatory Injunction be
awarded the defendant and at the
plaintiffs cost, directing the plaintiff
to abate the nuisance maintained by
him thereon, and that the strip of
ground in controversy be restored to
Water street and made subject to the
public. The
OPINION OF THE COURT
was written by Judge Dent. Following
is the syllabus:
81. If the original owner of tract
OF land lay the same off into town lots
with streets and alleys. between and
has the same so plated and sells the
lots with reference to such streets and
alleys as boundary lines of the same,
and such plot is adopted by the cor
poration authorities of the town in
which such lots are situated, a pur-
chaser of one of such lots is estopped
from denying the dedication of such
streets to public use.
SO. The statute of limitation runs
against the State and municipal cor
porations as against individuals in all
similar cases.
SO. The maxim, 'Uullum tempus oc-
currit regi,' applies to all the sover-
eign rights and property of the people
of the State, dedicated to public uses,
and of which they cannot be deprived
otherwise than according to their ex-
press will and appointment.
q. The public easement in public
highways, including roads, streets, al
leys and other public thoroughfares,
dedicated TO the use of the general
public by individuals or under the
right of eminent domain, is such prop
erty, and cannot be
LOST TO THE PEOPLE
by the negligence OF Subtle ofiicials or
the unlawful acts of individuals.
''5. An individual cannot destroy such
easement by setting up a claim of pre-
scription, adverse possession under the
statute of limitation, or equitable
estoppel, as the people cannot be de-
prived of their sovereign rights in any
of these ways.
So The opinions Of the judges of this
Court III the cases OF Wheeling VS..
Campbell, II w. Va SO; Forsythe VS.
Wheeling, 10 w. Va. 31S; and Teass vs.
ST. Adams, SO w. Va. /, in so far as
they hold that the public easement in
the public highways of this State are
subject to the bar of the statute limi-
tatlOnS
ARE DISPROVED.
81. 1t is the expressed will of the
people of this State that private prop
erty shall not be taken or damaged
for public use by governmental officers
or agencies without just compensa-
ton
Another case of considerable import
ance decided recently by the Court was
that of Miller against the State Board
of Agriculture. Albert Gallatin Miller
was the State printer, and on the I'd of
January last entered into a contract
with the State, through the commits
sioners of public printing, to do all
the printing for the State for two years
The State Board of Agriculture, claim
ing that the printing required in the
exercise of its public function does not
fall under that contract, refused to al
low Miller to do its printing, and en-
ployed the Donnally Publishing Com
pany TO do it. Miller then applied TO
the Supreme Court for a writ OF per-
emptory mandamus TO compel the
Board of Agriculture TO have him do
its printing.
There were
TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS
involved in this case. First, whether
a mere contract can be enforced by
a mandamus, and second, whether the
State can be sued
The Court refused to award the
,mandamus. The opinion is by Judge
Brannon. Following is the syllabus:
Il. A mere private contract will
not be enforced by mahdamus.