user claim in Illinois

2021Express notice is not necessary, but there must be such conduct on the part of the public authorities as to reasonably inform the owner that the highway is used under a claim of right.’ ” Id. at 316-17 (quoting Town of Brushy Mound v. McClintock, 150 Ill. 2d 129 , 133- 34 (1894)). ¶ 26 Smith v. Mervis, 38 Ill.

2021Express notice is not necessary, but there must be such conduct on the part of the public authorities as to reasonably inform the owner that the highway is used under a claim of right.’ ” Id. at 316-17 (quoting Town of Brushy Mound v. McClintock, 150 Ill. 2d 129 , 133- 34 (1894)). ¶ 26 Smith v. Mervis, 38 Ill.

2002Gonzalez, 326 Ill.

1972The user must be under claim of right in the public and not by mere acquiescence on the part of the owner * * In Swinford v. Roper (1945), 389 Ill. 340 , 59 N.E .2d 863, the Supreme Court again considered the use of a portion of the defendant’s property use of a portion of the defendant’s property under a contention that it had ripened into a public highway within the meaning of Sec. 2 — 202, Chapter 121, supra. In holding that it had not and in reversing the trial court the Supreme Court stated: * * Where land is originally laid out and used as a private way for the use of adjoining landowner

1940(Gietl v. Smith, 320 Ill. 467 .) Neither of appellants has ever made any lasting and valuable improvements on the property.

1932The case of Schmidt v. Brown, supra , was there taken into account, and we distinguished it by pointing out that it involved a user under a claim of right, which was therefore adverse under the Statute of Limitations.

1932Appellants insist that this case is governed by Morse v. Lorenz , 262 Ill. 115 .

1916(Town of Brushy Mound v. McClintock, 150 Ill. 129 .) But a prescriptive right may be acquired where 'the use is adverse with the knowledge of the owner in possession of the lands although the land is unenclosed.