Case Name: In the Matter of Rebuilding the Bridge across the Shawangunk Kill, between the towns of Crawford and Shawangunk
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1885-12-08
Citations: 100 N.Y. 642
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Rebuilding the Bridge across the Shawangunk Kill, between the towns of Crawford and Shawangunk.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Rebuilding the Bridge across the Shawangunk Kill, between the towns of Crawford and Shawangunk.
If mere user by the public, without any action of town authorities, laying out, recording, improving or accepting a road can make it a highway (as to which qumre), such user must continue for at least twenty years.
(Argued November 24, 1885;
decided December 8, 1885.)
This is an appeal by the town of Shawangunk from an order of General Term, made November 18, 1884, which reversed an order of Special Term, confirming the report of a referee adjudging the town of Crawford liable to rebuild one-half of a bridge across the Shanaugnnk kill, a stream of water which forms the boundary line between said towns. The road which crossed the stream by the bridge was opened and the bridge built at private expense. It was used by the public, and that portion thereof in the .town of Crawford was regularly laid out in and by proceedings under the statute, but that portion, in the town of Shawangunk was-never legally laid out or accepted by the town. In 1881 the bridge was washed away by a freshet, and the town of Crawford refused to contribute toward rebuilding it. The following is the mem. of opinion :
“ The road in the town of Crawford was not legally laid out. There was no acceptance by the town, or its officers, of the road after it was opened by private parties. Nor was there any acceptance of the dedication of the land for the highway which imposed the burden of the highway upon the town. The road was never recorded as such, and no order was ever made laying it out, and it was never worked or improved by the town as such. Here the use of the road by the public was only for about four years, and if mere user by the public without any action of the town authorities laying out, or recording, or improving, or accepting the road, can make a highway (a point we do not determine), such user must continue at least twenty years.
“ Concurring in the opinion pronounced at the General Term we see no occasion to write more.
“The order should be affirmed, with costs.”
J. F.Cloonan for appellant.
William Vanamee for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam
opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Order affirmed.