TURNPIKE-ROAD. A road or highway over which the public have the right to travel upon payment of toll, and on which the par ties entitled to such toll have the right to erect gates and bars to insure its payment. 6 M. & W. 428; Maysville & Mt. S. Turnp. Co. v. Ratliff, 85 Ky. 244, 3 S. W. 148.
A turnpike-road is a public highway ; Pitts burgh, M. & Y. R. Co. v. Corn., 104 Pa. 583; Lexington & 0. R. Co. v. Applegate, 8 Dana '(Ky.) 289, 33 Am. Dec. 497; and the obstruct ing of it is a public nuisance ; Com. v. Wilk inson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 175, 26 Am. Dec. 654 ; and the posting of a notice that the company could not profitably keep up the road and un less it was bought by the county it would be closed up as private property, was held to be in effect an abandonment of the road and it became a public highway ; Craig v. Peo ple, 47 Ill. 487.
Turnpike-roads are usually made by cor porations under legislative authority ; and, the roads being deemed a public use, such corporations are usually armed with the pow er to take private property for their construc tion. The title to the soil remains in the owners of the adjoining land ; Wright v. Car ter, 27 N. J. L. 76; and, after the franchise for the construction of the turnpike has ex pired, the road reverts to the public; Pitts burgh, M. & Y. R. Co. v. Corn., 104 Pa. 583; State v. Toll-Road Co., 10 Nev. 155. The leg islature may authorize the conversion of an existing highway into a turnpike-road ; Sher wood v. Weston, 18 Conn. 32 ; without any pecuniary equivalent to the owner of the fee, such road still remaining a public highway ; Chagrin, F. & C. P. R. Co. v. Cane, 2 Ohio St. 419 ; but no matter how bad the condition of a public road, its condition is no justifica tion to a turnpike company for taking it as the line of a turnpike ; Groff's Appeal, 128 Pa. 621, 18 Atl. 431. A turnpike-road being a highway, any obstruction placed thereon ren ders the author of it liable as for a public nuisance; CoMmonwealth v. Wilkinson, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 175, 26 Am. Dec. 654 ; Estes v. Kelsey, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 555.
A turnpike company cannot be deprived of its road or its franchise by the exten sion of the limits of a municipal corpora tion to include the road; Fort Wayne L. &
I. Co. v. Road Co., 132 Ind. 80, 30 N. E. 880, 15 L. R. A. 651. It is held that municipal au thorities may require the grade of a turn pike within its limits to be changed to con form to that of a street ; Borough of Cham bersburg v. Manko, 39 N. J. L. 500 ; and the municipality may require the turnpike to be kept in repair, but the city is not liable for a failure to do so ; State v. New Brunswick, 32 N. J. L. 548; and a municipality may, by legislative authority, tax itself in aid of a turnpike company ; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 175, 17 L. Ed. 520; Douglas v. Chatham, 41 Conn. 211.
A statute attempting to authorize a court, without a jury, to declare a turnpike-road abandoned and its franchise forfeited because the road has been out of repair for six months, violates the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury and against the deprivation of proper ty without due process of law; Salt Creek Turnp. Co. v. Parks, 50 Ohio St. 568, 35 N. E. 304, 28 L. R. A. 769.
Turnpike companies, so long as they con tinue to take toll, are bound to use ordinary. care in keeping their roads in suitable repair, and for any neglect of this duty are liable to action on the case for the damages to any per son especially injured thereby ; Townsend v. Turnpike Co., 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 90; Pomeroy v. Turnpike Corp., 10 Pick. (Mass.) 35; and to an indictment on the part of the public; State v. Patton, 26 N. C. 16; Moore v. State, 26 Ala. 88; Corn. v. Bridge Corp., 2 Gray (Mass.) 58.
Travelers are liable for toll though they avoid the gates ; Fitch v. Lothrop, 2 Root (Conn.) 524; Centre Turnpike Co. v. Vandu sen, 10 Vt. 197; but not for travel between the gates without passing the same; Elliott, Roads 70; Lexington & G. T. Rd. Co. v. Redd, 2 B. Monr. (Ky.) 30; Buncombe Turnpike Co. v. Mills, 32 N. C. 30; but where the traveler entered upon the turnpike and traveled there on and when near a toll gate, turned out up on a public highway and thereby passed the toll gate without toll, but did not en ter again upon the turnpike, he was not lia ble under a statute for fraudulent evasion of tolls, although he may have had such inten tion ; Centre Turnpike Co. v. Vandusen, 10 Vt. 197.