tice. (Doyle v. Teas, 4 Scam. 202; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co. v. Kennedy, 70 Ill. 350; Morrison v. Kelly, 22 id. 609; Blake v. Blake, 260 id. 70.) When a description in a deed is erroneous and it is apparent what the error is, the record is constructive notice of the deed as to the land intended to be described; and so the record of a deed describing the premises by an impossible sectional number is sufficient to put a purchaser from the same grantor upon inquiry and may charge him with notice of the grant actually made or intended to be made. (2 Jones on Real Property, sec. 1437.) Mrs. Quick remained in possession for years under the deed, which, together with the record thereof, was certainly sufficient to put the purchaser, and all claiming under her, upon notice as to the land that was actually intended to be conveyed. Under very similar errors in the descriptions in deeds this court held the recording of such deeds a sufficient notice of the grant actually made or intended to be made, in Merrick v. Wallace, 19 Ill. 486, and Citizen's Nat. Bank v. Dayton, 116 id. 257. The facts in the last case, especially, are almost "on all fours" with those in the case at bar. The reasoning, also, in Bent v. Coleman, 89 Ill. 364, and in Slocum v. O'Day, 174 id. 215, and Weigel v. Green, 218 id. 227, tends to support the conclusion that this description. in the deed as recorded, in connection with the fact that the purchaser remained in possession thereunder for so many years, was sufficient to make it the duty of any purchaser thereafter to inquire into the true state of facts as to the land actually intended to be conveyed by said deed.

We have considered the only questions raised by counsel. For the reasons already suggested, the decree will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in harmony with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

JOHN A. FORS et al. Appellees, vs. A. E. ANDERSON et al. Appellants.

Opinion filed October 27, 1915-Rehearing denied Dec. 9, 1915.

I. INJUNCTION-a court of equity may enjoin the obstruction of a public highway. A court of equity may enjoin the obstruction of a public highway where the right is clear and appertains to the public or where an individual is injuriously and directly affected by the obstruction in a manner and degree different from the public at large.

2. SAME-injury need not be so great as to be beyond possibil ity of compensation. While the complainants' right must be clear to authorize the enjoining of an obstruction in a public highway and it must appear that the obstruction of the easement will be an irreparable injury, yet it is not required that the easement be absolutely necessary or that the injury be so great as to be beyond the possibility of compensation in damages.

3. SAME when highway commissioners are proper parties complainant. Highway commissioners are proper parties complainant to a bill to enjoin the obstruction of public highways, even though part of the land embraced in the highways was originally platted as part of a village, where the owners of such land constructed their fences so as to allow the land to be in the highways, which have been extensively traveled by the public and accepted and worked by the highway commissioners for more than thirty years.

4. SAME―when individuals are proper parties to bill to enjoin obstruction of highways. Individuals who own land abutting upon a road and who have built their fences and erected their buildings with reference to the road as a means of access to and egress from the property are proper parties complainant in a bill to enjoin the obstruction of such roads.

5. APPEALS AND ERRORS-when decree will not be reversed for misjoinder of parties. If part of the complainants in a bill to enjoin the obstruction of public highways are proper parties and are entitled, under the facts, to the relief decreed, the decree will not be reversed because of the misjoinder, as parties complainant, of two individuals whose injury is not shown to be different in kind or degree from that of the public at large, neither of them owning any land adjacent to the highways.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. EMERY C. GRAVES, Judge, presiding.

WALKER, INGRAM & Sweeney, (HENRY WATERMAN, of counsel,) for appellants.

STURTZ & EWAN, and ALMON H. LINN, for appellees.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE FARMER delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a decree for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants to the bill, appellants here, from closing or obstructing two alleged public highways and ordering the removal of certain obstructions placed in one of them. The bill was filed by John A. Fors, Lewis Schmoll and Bengt Anderson, as commissioners of highways of Andover township, Henry county, and John A. Charlson, George W. Anderson and A. G. Anderson, owners of lots in the village of Andover, and Carl J. Westring, who owned farm land adjoining the road on the east side of the village of Andover and a lot on the east line of said village. The defendants to the bill, appellants here, are the president and trustees of the village of Andover.

The village of Andover was platted in 1838 to include the south half of section 8 and the north half of section 17. It was a mile square and was laid off into forty-nine blocks, being seven blocks north and south and the same east and west. The blocks were divided into four lots of two and one-half acres each, with streets running north and south and east and west between the blocks. From north to south the streets were named by numbers from First street, which is the north boundary of the village, to Eighth street, which is the south boundary. On the east boundary, outside the lot lines, the plat shows a narrow strip thirty links wide at the south end and running to a point at the north end, which is designated Ash street. From there west the streets are, Beech, Cedar, Elm, Locust, Mulberry, Oak, and a narrow strip outside the lot lines on the west border is designated Pine street, which according to the

plat is twenty-four links wide at the south end, fifteen links wide at the center and sixteen links wide at the north end. The highways the obstruction of which is complained of, are a road running north and south along the east side of the village, including the strip marked on the plat as Ash street, and the road running north and south on the west side of the village, which includes the strip designated on the plat as Pine street.

The bill alleges the village of Andover is an incorporated village lying within Andover township; that certain highways running along the east and west boundaries thereof, about four rods wide, have been used for highways for about fifty years, and for the past thirty years adjacent property owners have recognized the boundary lines by the construction of fences, walks, bridges and buildings, and that two cemeteries, one on the east and one on the west side of the village, were laid out with reference to said highways. The bill alleges that two of the defendants, A. E. Anderson and Frank Carlson, have obstructed the highway on the east side of the village by building fences therein, and that defendant Anderson has torn out a bridge in said highway sixteen feet wide and eight feet long which lay almost wholly outside the village, and that said defendants were encouraged, urged and directed in these acts by the other defendants; that the defendants, as trustees of the village, passed a resolution purporting to vacate both of said highways and attempted to pass an ordinance for the vacation of the east highway; that defendants threaten to close both highways and will do so unless restrained by injunction; that if said highways were closed it would destroy complainants' direct means of ingress to and egress from their lots, irreparably injure them by shifting the lot lines, and cause a multiplicity of suits. It is further alleged the village trustees have caused two or more surveys of the village to be made in the last few years, and have

sought to disturb the lot owners in the village and the owners of land adjoining the village in their property rights. The prayer of the bill is that defendants be enjoined from passing an ordinance or resolution, as trustees of the village of Andover, vacating Ash and Pine streets, or either of said highways or any part thereof, and from placing any fences or obstructions therein and from removing any bridge; also that defendants Anderson and Carlson be required by order of the court to remove the fences and obstructions placed in said highway by them.

The answer admits there are roads or public highways along the eastern and western boundaries of the village used for travel to a limited extent but denies they have been used fifty years; admits property owners and the village have recognized the said roads, built fences, dwelling houses and walks along portions thereof for thirty years; that the village built a bridge in one of said highways and the commissioners of highways built a bridge in the other one; denies that the cemetery on the east side abuts the highway, and denies the charge in the bill that defendants were guilty of any fraud or that they were actuated by spite. The answer then takes up the question of the location of the fences enclosing property in the village and avers the fences were not built on the correct lines, as a consequence of which some fences encroached on the streets in places and in other places parts of lots were left out in the streets; that the village authorities desired the property owners to place their improvements on the true line and had persuaded many of them to do so. The answer avers that the place where defendant Anderson built the fence complained of was not a public highway for fifty years but was the east line of his lots 1 and 28, and no legal highway existed on the east portion of said lots. Like averments are made as to the fence built by defendant Carlson. The answer denies the allegations of the bill as to