Sharp v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Sharp v. State

142 So. 683, 25 Ala. App. 173, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 148

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 1932

Docket8 Div. 573.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 So. 683 (Sharp v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sharp v. State, 142 So. 683, 25 Ala. App. 173, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 148 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The prosecution in this ease was brought under section 1397 (145) of the Code of 1928.

The only controverted fact was whether the road in question had become public, by prescription; i. e., had it been used by the public as a road, openly, notoriously, and adversely, for a period of twenty years prior to the date of its obstruction by the defendant. If the roád hgd been used continuously and without objection for twenty years prior to its obstruction by this defendant, it was a public road within the meaning of the statute above cited. Card v. Cunningham, 199 Ala. 222, 74 So. 335; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Faulkner, 217 Ala. 82, 114 So. 686.

There were many objections and exceptions made and reserved during the taking of testimony. The rulings of the court in this regard were either free from error or were harmless to defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The prosecution in this ease was brought under section 1397 (145) of the Code of 1928.

The only controverted fact was whether the road in question had become public, by prescription; i. e., had it been used by the public as a road, openly, notoriously, and adversely, for a period of twenty years prior to the date of its obstruction by the defendant. If the roád hgd been used continuously and without objection for twenty years prior to its obstruction by this defendant, it was a public road within the meaning of the statute above cited. Card v. Cunningham, 199 Ala. 222, 74 So. 335; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Faulkner, 217 Ala. 82, 114 So. 686.

There were many objections and exceptions made and reserved during the taking of testimony. The rulings of the court in this regard were either free from error or were harmless to defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 683, 25 Ala. App. 173, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharp-v-state-alactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack