in the roadway — that determination necessarily implies a finding that the roadway is not a public road, allowing O’Neal and the Hills, along with Otha Steele and Harold Steele, to exclude the public from accessing the roadway. Because the question whether the roadway was a public road was at issue in the trial court, and because the trial court’s judgment affects the use of the roadway by the public, Jackson County was an indispensable party to the action. See Wilson v. Berry, 36 So.3d 559 (Ala.Civ.App.2009). This court has routinely reversed judgments in cases between private parties where the question whether a roadway is public or private has arisen, holding that the county was an indispensable party to the action. See Allbritton v. Dawkins, 19 So.3d 241, 244 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (<HOLDING>); Wilson, 36 So.3d at 561 (holding that the
recognizing private right of action holding that the county was an indispensable party to an action between two private parties in which the public status of a roadway was in question holding that a subsequent abandonment of a public rightofway over such a road has no effect on a private easement owned by an abutting landowner holding that a private right of action exists holding that the county was an indispensable party to an action between private parties involving the question whether the plaintiffs had acquired a private easement or alternatively whether the roadway was a public road