Court Opinion

ID: 9710715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:16:06.034635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:59.382858
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Keleey, J.
On the basis that “no evidence was offered which remotely tended or indicated to prove abandonment,” I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion. Insofar, however, as the opinion holds that abandonment was not an, issue before the court, I do not agree. Under the pleadings filed in the cause, the appellees asserted the existence of a highway by user over a portion of appellants’ land. Appellants closed this issue by a denial of the existence of said highway over their land. Thus, the issue presented to the court, by such pleadings, was whether, at the time the appellants’ action was commenced, such highway existed. If the highway had been, in fact, previously abandoned then such highway did not, in fact, *574exist at the time appellants instituted their action. In other words, it seems to me that the- issue of whether the highway did or did not presently exist would, of necessity, encompass the consideration of any evidence of its abandonment.
Note. — Reported in 117 N. E. 2d 753.