WISCONSIN.

Rev. St. 1849, c. 65, § 52. Executor's sale-When not to be avoided, 23.

t

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA.

IN THE

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and Another v. CITY OF
ST. PAUL and Others.1

May 1, 1895.

Plat-Construction.

Where a person surveys and plats his land into blocks, lots, streets, and alleys, all the lines upon such plat represent the intent of the owner, and the meaning expressed by such lines should be deemed as effectual as that of the words or language found thereon.

V.61 M.-1

Nos. 9172-(144).2

Same-Dedication of Street.

Where the owner of land draws and executes a plat thereof, and designates a strip thereon, by lines, as a street, and makes conveyances according to such plat, such strip is irrevocably dedicated to the public use as a street.

1 Reported in 63 N. W. 96.

Same-Evidence.

Upon the evidence in this case, held, that the premises in controversy, the full length thereof and to the width of 60 feet, next adjoining block 80, according to the Case plat, constitute a public highway; but held, that the evidence is insufficient to establish the 20-feet strip as part of a highway.

On Motion for Reargument. May 18, 1895.3

New Trial-Finding against Evidence.

Where, in an action for land on the ground of adverse possession, on evidence requiring a finding that defendant has possession and an ease

2 See note on page iv., supra.

3 Reported in 63 N. W. 240.

61 1 62 454

61

1 69 279

ment in a part of the tract, and plaintiff has possession of the other part, a finding is made that defendant is in possession of the whole tract, and that plaintiff, being without title or possession, cannot maintain his action, if the exact part each party is in possession of cannot be determined without a new finding by the appellate court, a new trial must be granted.

Action by Great Northern Railway Company and St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company in the district court for Ramsey county to enjoin defendant city and the other defendants, its contractors, from constructing a bridge in Broadway street in the city of St. Paul from Prince Street to and across the Mississippi River to West St. Paul. The case was tried without a jury before Brill, J., whose findings of fact, so far as material thereto, are referred to in the opinion. The court found as conclusions of law (1) that Broadway was a public street extending south of Water street, 80 feet wide, to the tracks of the Union Depot Company, used by plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs, or either of them, had not the right to possession thereof, to the exclusion of the public, save a small portion upon the westerly side occupied by the end of plaintiffs' building; (2) that the city could not build said bridge until it had acquired the right by condemnation proceedings to interfere with the enjoyment of the property abutting on said street, and until the grades of the streets running to and intersecting and crossing Broadway should be fixed so far as might be necessary. by reason of the erection of said bridge; and directed that judg ment be entered accordingly. A motion by defendant city to strike out the second conclusion of law and to insert in lieu thereof the following: "Neither plaintiff is entitled to any relief against the defendants or any of them by injunction or otherwise" was denied by the court. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Modified.

M. D. Grover and Cyrus Wellington, for appellants.

The acts of an owner in dedication should be deliberate and unequivocal, manifesting an unmistakable intent permanently to abandon his property to a specific use. An offer of dedication must be accepted by the public within a reasonable time and before the offer has been revoked. People v. Reed, 20 Pac. 708; City

of Galveston v. Williams, 69 Tex. 449, 6 S. W. 860; Chicago v. Drexel, 141 Ill. 89, 30 N. E. 774; Wilson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 41 Minn. 56, 42 N. W. 600; Field v. Manchester, 32 Mich. 279; Hayward v. Manzer, 70 Cal. 476, 13 Pac. 141; People v. Reed, 81 Cal. 70, 22 Pac. 474; Village of Grandville v. Jenison, 84 Mich. 54, 47 N. W. 600; County of Wayne v. Miller, 31 Mich. 447; Bell v. City of Burlington, 68 Iowa, 296, 27 N. W. 245; Littler v. City of Lincoln, 106 Ill. 353.

Leon T. Chamberlain and Walter L. Chapin, for respondents.

When land is platted and conveyances are made by reference to the plat, all the streets designated thereon are at once irrevocably dedicated to the public use. Hurley v. Mississippi & R. R. B. Co., 34 Minn. 143, 24 N. W. 917; Wilder v. City of St. Paul, 12 Minn. 116 (192); City of Winona v. Huff, 11 Minn. 75 (119); Dillon Mun. Corp. § 640; Bartlett v. Bangor, 67 Me. 460; Wyman v. Mayor, 11 Wend. 487; Shea v. City of Ottumwa, 67 Iowa, 39, 24 N. W. 582; Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood, 118 Ill. 61, 6 N. E. 866; Elliott, Roads, 111; Logan v. Rose, 88 Cal. 263, 26 Pac. 106; Steel v. City of Portland, 23 Ore. 176, 31 Pac. 479; City of Hannibal v. Draper, 15 Mo. 634; Pope v. Town of Union, 18 N. J. Eq. 282; Matter of 29th St., 1 Hill (N. Y.) 189; Matter of 39th St., 1 Hill (N. Y.) 191; Matter of 32d St., 19 Wend. 128; Rowan v. Portland, 8 B. Mon. 232; Bissell v. New York C. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 61; Carter v. City of Portland, 4 Or. 339; Rives v. Dudley, 3 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 126; Huber v. Gazley, 18 Ohio, 18; Fisher v. Beard, 32 Iowa, 346; Schenley v. Commonwealth, 36 Pa. St. 62; City of Cincinnati v. Lessee of White, 6 Pet. 431; New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662; Evansville v. Evans, 37 Ind. 229; Arrowsmith v. New Orleans, 24 La. An. 194; Commonwealth v. Alburger, 1 Whart. 469; Commonwealth v. McDonald, 16 S. & R. 390; In re Opening of Pearl St., 111 Pa. St. 565, 5 Atl. 430, 2 Cent. Rep. 308, citing Trutt v. Spotts, 87 Pa. St. 339; Fox v. Union Sugar Refinery, 109 Mass. 292; Toby v. Taunton, 119 Mass. 404; Herbert v. Rainey, 54 Fed. 248; Rainey v. Herbert, 3 U. S. App. 592, 5 C. C. A. 183, 55 Fed. 443; City of Indianapolis v. Kingsbury, 101 Ind. 200; Town of Derby v. Alling, 40 Conn. 410; Trustees of M. E. Church v.