Home/Nebraska Supreme Court/Gilliland v. County of Frontier

Gilliland v. County of Frontier

28 N.W.2d 448, 148 Neb. 636, 1947 Neb. LEXIS 92
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 11, 1947
DocketNo. 32229
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 N.W.2d 448 (Gilliland v. County of Frontier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gilliland v. County of Frontier, 28 N.W.2d 448, 148 Neb. 636, 1947 Neb. LEXIS 92 (Neb. 1947).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

Plaintiff Harry Gilliland is the owner and plaintiffs are the occupiers of 240 acres in Frontier County. There are two groups of defendants: The county and the county commissioners, and defendants Neiman. Defendant Elmo L. Neiman is the owner and defendants Neiman are the occupiers of 640 acres of land lying to the south and east of plaintiffs’ land. The suit involves the question of a roadway across plaintiffs’ land. Plaintiffs sought a decree enjoining the defendants Neiman from trespassing upon their lands and enjoining the defendant county from going upon the lands for the purpose of locating or constructing a public road thereon, and from interfering with plaintiffs’ possession of the land.

Defendants Neiman answered alleging that the road involved was a public highway, setting out establishment by adverse user and by proceedings of the county commissioners had in 1908. They further alleged that the road had not been vacated and that plaintiffs attempted to close it in September 1945. Defendants sought a denial of plaintiffs’ petition and equitable relief.

Defendant county answered making certain admissions and denying generally.

During the progress of the trial the court and attorneys viewed the premises. The court found generally for the plaintiffs and enjoined the defendants and each of them from trespassing upon the plaintiffs’ lands. The Neimans appeal. The county makes no appearance here. [638]*638The error assigned is that the pleadings and evidence do not support the findings and judgment of the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The land in the northeast corner of plaintiffs’ quarter is bisected by ravines running east and west and across the section line. It appears that for many years last past defendants Neiman and others have used a roadway across plaintiffs’ land which went around the ravines. The road was meandering and unimproved, and went through gates which were in the fences on the east and north of plaintiffs’ land. It appears that defendants Neiman desired a better outlet to the north and sought advice about opening a road. They were informed that there was a road which had been opened in 1908. The county surveyor on instructions from the commissioners, undertook to locate the 1908 road and surveyed a road lying to the south and west of the existing road. There is evidence that some work was undertaken on this road following the survey. Plaintiffs wired shut the gates. Defendants opened them and controversy arose, resulting in this litigation.

The first matters to be determined are questions of fact. Several exhibits were used. Throughout the trial witnesses were asked questions and gave answers with reference to unidentified exhibits and as to what they saw or knew existed here and there and of roads that went this way and that way. 'This evidence is unintelligible to us. It may have been clear to the trial court. Just as we give weight to his viewing of the premises, so this evidence gives weight to his conclusions.

We undertake to summarize the evidence that can be pinned down with reasonable certainty. For purposes of clarity we have prepared a chart showing the approximate location of the land and the various roads about which testimony was given. The chart is not an exact reproduction of any exhibit. It is used solely to enable a clearer understanding of the fact statements and the conclusions which we make.

[639]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Connot v. Bowden
200 N.W.2d 126 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 N.W.2d 448, 148 Neb. 636, 1947 Neb. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilliland-v-county-of-frontier-neb-1947.