Posted by Jeffrey Phillips Jul 21, Thompson v. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.
Thompson vs. Smith, supra. Danforth, Miss. Caneisha Mills v. Berberian v. Lussier A2d , , See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, P. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.
Adams v. City of Pocatello, P. Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. Wright, 63 Atl. Horton 14 Cal. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle. House v. Cramer, N. Tampa Electric Co. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.
They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement. Indiana Springs Co. Brown, Ind. City of Atlanta, S. Holland v. Shackelford, S. Palmer, 73 A. Crandall, N. Chaput, 60 A. Seattle, P. DeBrosse, 23 NE.
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, U. Hillhouse v United States, F. Johnson, P. Homes, P. Banton, 44 S. Lundin, 98 Wash , Willis vs.
