Wenzel v. Kempmeier
This text of 5 N.W. 185 (Wenzel v. Kempmeier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Notwithstanding fourteen years had elapsed, between the time the road was established and the time it was opened, we do not think that the public had lost its rights. During the first seven years the land was owned, and occupied by the person who had given his written consent to. the establishment of the road. It cannot be said that he commenced holding forthwith under a claim that the public had abandoned its rights, and we see nothing to indicate that he so held at any time. The fact that the travel had been diverted to find a fording place would indicate that it was a temporary shift resorted to in the absence of a bridge in the road as established, and we think that it must have been so considered. The instructions given are in harmony with the views which we have expressed, and those asked by the plaintiffs and refused are not. We think there was no error.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 N.W. 185, 53 Iowa 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wenzel-v-kempmeier-iowa-1880.