Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-375-Application-of-land-to-public-use.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:47:24+00:00

Document:
40. Cheda v. Bodkin, 173 Cal. 7. 158 Pac. 1025; Smith v. Roath, 238 111. 247, 87 N. E. 414; Reed v. West, 16 Gray (Mass.) 283; Atlanta Mills v. Mason, 120 Mass. 244; Dority v. Dunning, 78 Me. 381, 6 Atl. 6 (dictum); Blanchard v. Maxson, 84 Conn. 429, 80 Atl. 206.
41. See Tuttle v. Kilroa, 177 Mass. 146, 58 N. E. 682.
42. But there is perhaps a partial extinguishment, that is, an extinguishment as regards his interest in the easement, precluding him, or any one claiming under him, from thereafter exercising the easement. See Bar-finger v. Virginia Trust Co., 132 N. C. 409, 43 S. E. 910.
43. See Ecclesiastical Com'rs for England v. Kino, 14 Ch. Div. 213; Pearce v. Mcclenaghan, 5 Rich. Law (S. C.) 178, 55 Am. Dec. 710.
44. The question is referred to in Dodge v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 351, but the cases in other states there referred to as adjudications on the question appear to be but partially applicable. In Murphy v. Bates, 21 R. I. 89, 41 Atl. 1011, it is said that "ordinarily a private way becomes merged in a public way," but the authorities cited (Ross v. Thompson, 78 Ind. 90; Elliott, Roads & Streets, Sec.Sec. 3 & 4) do not support the statement.
45. Ante, Sec. 366a, note 35. And see Isaac G. Johnson & Co. v. Cox, 196 N. Y. 110, 89 N. E. 454.
1 Man. & Gr. 484; Duncan v. Louch, 6 Q. B. 904; R. v. Chorley, 12 Q. B. 515.
47. Bailey v. Culver, 84 Mo. 531.
48. Sarcoxie v. Wild, 64 Mo App. 403. See Post, Sec. 181.
49. See ante, 367, note 78.
50. M( Kinney v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 222 Pa. 48, 70 Atl. 946.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.