TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Baldridge

The State of Missouri v. John Baldridge

State v. Baldridge, 53 Mo. App. 415 (1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 3, 1893
Judges
Ellison
Citations
53 Mo. App. 4151893 Mo. App. LEXIS 76
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 1
Headnotes
Criminal Law: obstructing road: irregular opening. Although the proceedings for opening a road be void, such fact will not defeat a prosecution for its obstruction, where there has been ten years' use and occupancy by the public acquiesced in by the owner.
Summary
Appeal from the LaFayette Circuit Court. — IIon. John E. Ryland, Judge. The condemnation proceedings to establish the-public road that the defendant is charged with obstructing are absolutely void. Then no public road coiild be-established by reason of said proceedings. No dedication of any road. No public road established by prescription over Mrs. Emerson’s land, where the-defendant is charged with obstructing a public road. No road-had been used by the public for ten consecutive-years, and public labor or money expended thereon. The public must have used the ro ad for ten consecutive years and public labor or money expended thereon on the land of Mrs. Emerson to divest her of her title and establish a public road by prescription, and neither-was done. 2 Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 7847; 2 Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 7827. Laws, 1874, adjourned session of the Twenty-Seventh General Assembly; Session Acts of 1874, secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,10, p. 135; Laws, 1875, Session Acts 1875,. secs. 1, 2, p. 143; Zimmerman v. Snotoden, 88 Mo., 210; Jefferson Go. v. Cowan, 54 Mo. 234; Whitely v.. Platte Co., 73 Mo. 30; Foster v. Davis, 27 Mo. App. 321.. The court properly granted instructions 1 and 2 on. part of respondent. State v. Walters, 69 Mo. 463; Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. 431; Carlin v. Paul, 11 Mo., 32; Gamble v. St. Louis, 12 Mo. 618; State v. Yowng,. 27 Mo. 259; State v. Culver, 65 Mo. 607; State v. Wells,. 70 Mo. 635; State v. Proctor, 90 Mo. 334; State v.. Ramsey, 76 Mo. 398; State to usev. Railroad, 46 Mo. App.. 466; State v. Bradley, 31 Mo. App, C08; State v. Davis,. 27. Mo, App. 624.'

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ellison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ellison, J.

— Defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for obstructing a public road in LaFayette *417 county. The defense seems to be principally based upon the fact that the proceedings in the county court for the opening and establishing the road in the first instance were so irregular as to render them absolutely void. The instructions offered for defendant are principally in support of such view, the court being therein asked to declare that, if the irregularities mentioned in the instructions were found by the court to exist, then defendant must be declared not guilty. In other words, defendant’s idea seems to be that if the proceedings in the county court for the opening of a public road are void that it may be considered as not a road. But this theory of defendant, however correct as a proposition unaffected by other considerations appearing in the facts of a case, does not meet the case made by the state. The state contends that notwithstanding there was no regular and valid opening of the' road in the first instance by the county court, yet that ten years’ adverse occupancy and use of a road by the public will be sufficient, if acquiesced in by the owner, to vest in the public an easement in the road and cause it' to become a public highway. And this "was the theory of the trial court as evidenced by its instruction for the state. This view has been long and well established in Missouri. State v. Wells, 70 Mo. 635 ; State v. Walters, 69 Mo. 463 ; State v. Proctor, 90 Mo. 334 .

We have examined the testimony presented to us by defendant and find that it abundantly sustains the finding made against him. The road was used by the public for more than fifteen years without obstruction. It was opened out by the public and was under the_ supervision of different road overseers for this space .of time, and was regarded and used as a public road.

The trial was before the court without a jury and the instruction for the state, as well as those refused *418 for defendant, shows that the court proceeded upon the correct theory of the law. The judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 1 case

View all citing references →
1910: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Hood126 S.W. 992 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)

Most recent

  1. State v. Hood126 S.W. 992 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Walters, 69 Mo. 463 (1879) 22
State v. Wells, 70 Mo. 635 (1879) 21
State v. Proctor, 90 Mo. 334 (1886) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list