G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…that the mere use of a road over unenclosed woodland could not confer a right of way, as a neighborhood road or private path, unless the use was shown to be adverse!.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1908 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1908
1967
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Breeding v. Koste
a distinction must therefore be observed between a claim of a way through enclosed and cultivated land, and of a way over unenclosed land.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilkinson v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, St. Mary's Cnty.
To support their argument that the mere filing of Plat 1919 created a public road, the Aikens rely on Day v. Allender, 22 Md. 511 (1865), where the Court of Appeals stated that “[t]he existence of a public way is proved either by a copy of the record, or by other documentary evidence of the proper laying out by the proper authorities, pursuant to statutes, or by evidence either of immemorial usage, or of dedication of the road to public use.” Id. at 525 (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Clickner v. Magothy River Ass'n
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Although the Court’s focus was on the public dedication of a roadway, we also discussed prescriptive rights and noted a case in which the jury was instructed that “the mere use of a road over unenclosed woodland could not confer a right of way, as a neighborhood road or private path, unless the use was shown to be adverse.... ” Day, 22 Md. at 526 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Libertini v. Schroeder
Day v. Allender, 22 Md. 511, 525, 529 ; Thomas v. Ford, 63 Md. 352 ; Carroll Co. v. Rickell, 146 Md. 468 ; Murphy v. Bates, 21 R.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bay City Prop. Owners v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Queen Anne's
See also Day v. Allender, 22 Md. 511, 526-27 (1865) (holding that if the “claim 26 of a way through enclosed and cultivated land” is “an invasion of property and a trespass[,]” then it is the exercise of “a privilege adverse to the right of property” and acquiescence or submission to it “may justify the inference of a legal right in the person who exercises the privilege”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ann M. Alther
v.
James Boyce
v.
James Boyce
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Feb 3, 1865.
Goldsborough.
Published
Goldsborough, J.,
delivered the opinion of this Court.
The claims of the appellant, and the parties defendant, being similar to those in the preceding case of Catharine Alther vs. Benjamin C. Barroll and others, (ante, p. 500,) we shall affirm the decree of the Circuit Court in this case for the reasons expressed in our opinion in the case referred to.
Decree affirmed, with costs to Appellees.