Thoroughfare

A street or way opening at both ends into another street or public highway, so that one can go through and get out of it without returning. It differs from a cul de sac, which is open only at one end. Whether a street which is not a thoroughfare is a highway seems not fully settled. 1 Vent. 189; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 76, i 1. In a case tried in 1790, where the locus in quo had been used as a common street for fifty years, but was no thoroughfare. Lord Kenyon held that it would make no difference; for otherwise the street would be a trap to make people trespassers. 11 East, 375. This decision in several subsequent cases was much criticised, though not directly overruled. 6 Taunt. 126; 5 Barn. & Aid. 456: 3 Bing. 447; 1 Campb. 260; 4 AdoL & E. 698. But in a later English case the decision of Lord Kenyon was aflirmed the latter case is that it is a question for the jury, on the evidence, whether a place •which is not a thoroughfare is a highway or not. 14 Eng. Law & Eq. 69. And see 28 Eng. Law & Eq. 30. In the United States there are but few cases in which this question has been discussed; though in Rhode Island it has been determined that a street terminating upon private land, and extending neither to another way, a mill, a market, nor other public place, is incapable of dedication to the public as a highway. 2 R. I. 172. And a similar decision has been made in New York. 23 N. Y. 103. And see 23 N. H. 331; 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 106.

A street or way opening at both ends into another street or public highway, so that one can go through and get out of it without returning. It differs from a cul de sac, which is open only at one end. 1 Ventr. 189. In a case tried in 1790 where the locus in quo had been used as a common street for fifty years, but was no thoroughfare, Lord Kenyon held that it would make no difference; for otherwise the street would be a trap to make people trespassers; 11 East 375. This decision in several subsequent cases was much criticised, though not directly overruled; 5 B. & Ald. 456; 1 Camp. 260; 4 Ad. & E. 608; but was affirmed by the unanimous opinion of the court of queen's bench holding that it is a question for the jury on the evidence, whether a place which is not a thoroughfare is a highway or not; 14 E. L. & E. 69. And see 28 id. 30. The United States authorities seem to follow the English; Danforth v. Durell, 8 Allen (Mass.) 242; People v. Kingman, 24 N. Y. 550 (overruling Holdane v. Trustees, 23 Barb. [N. Y.] 103); Sheaff v. People, 87 Ill. 189, 29 Am. Rep. 49; contra, Simmons v. Mumford, 2 R. I. 172. Where a lane originally established as a private way was a cul de sac, it was not incumbent on the owners of the fee to place obstructions therein or to notify persons using it that the license pursuant to which the travel was first permitted was revocable; the burden was on the users to notify the owners that they claimed an adverse right of use; Bohrnstedt Co. v. Scharen, 60 Or. 349, 119 Pac. 337. See Highway; Street; Cul de Sac; Way.

See Eoad, 1; Street; Wat.