Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of Rolling v. Emrich, 122 Wis. 134, 99 N.W. 464, 465 (1904). See also Simon v. Pettit, 687 P.2d 1299, 1303 (Colo.1984) ("evidence that the city had maintained the footpaths or included them on a map of the city’s street system would be a strong indication that the paths had acquired a status as public highways”); Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black, 25 Wyo. 109, 165 P. 518, 520 (1917) (noting that “those using the road had done considerable work thereon by making dugways, constructing bridges, etc.; one witness testifying that he had spent about $500 on it about 1891”) superseded by statute as noted in Yeager v. Forbes, 78 P.3d 241, 255 (Wyo.2003). 34 . The same is true of the construction of railroads. See Jamestown & N. R.R. Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 125, 132, 20 S.Ct. 568, 44 L.Ed. 698 (1900) . 35 . SUWA quotes this Court’s Hodel decision
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even if construction commences but it is based on an illegally issued permit no vested right is created
B. holding that railroad right of way under the act of march 3 1875 ch 152 18 stat 482 vested upon actual construction of the road
C. holding a defendant is not vested with a right to be absent from trial
D. holding that patents to lands over which rights of way created under 1875 act passed conveyed the servient estate in the right of way
E. holding in case where railroad grant was an easement and not a right of way that title vested in abutting landowner once railroad abandoned land
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.