Judge Rules Gate Across Historic Road to be Removed

If you look at one of the other linked articles you find that they didn't take the settlement because of bad information given by their attorney and possibly their surveyor as well.

As any of our graduates with an associate degree in surveying could have told them; roads laid out during the Dutch control are the exception to the rule. The title to these roads rests with the government. An abandonment merely removes public use until they want to use it again at any time. And even an official discontinuance does not relinquish rights to adjoining owners because they don't have any to the center of the traveled way. There is nothing to revert because the government had title first and still does. This stems from the difference between Dutch and English law regarding roads. And the policy of recognizing existing rights as governments changed (which happened all across the country, spanish land grants, etc..).

They might have argued that the relocation was done under english or state rule but would have had to prove first that it really was relocated and when that was done. Even then it could be argued there was a swap of titled property quid pro quo. I imagine this arguement is the only reason the government offered a settlement at all.

No, they should have took the settlement and ran, fast.

I would think that just the fact that the "public" has been using the road as it exists today for decades (?), whether or not it is the original road, would have prohibited them from blocking access. The act of using a path/trail/road is how most roads in the east and northeast were created in the first place, aka prescriptive rights.

Neither of the roads would be "Dutch Roads". The area was not first settled until the 1690's almost 30years after the English had taken control of New Amsterdam. The portion of the road in question was dedicated in 1800. In New Jersey all roads created since 1664 (excepting State Highways) fee title to the road bed remains in with the dedicating party or their successor in title.

It is a common misbelief with some municipal officials and even attorneys in this State that the Municipality owns the road. I have been involved in numerous cases where the Municipality has tried and in a few cases had sold a road, which it only holds an easement to.

As per the News Paper article "In her ruling, Wigenton, sitting in Newark, said Sandyston had always intended to transfer or donate its interest in Old Mine Road to the United States" Once the Township Vacated the Road they had no interest to convey.

This is an example of why you should avoid going to court, anything can happen.

Yeah, just going by the article that makes the claim and the objection involving condemnation language that seems to confirm it. Have not read the case. Might have to dig this one up to see what the decision really says.