City of Eureka v. Armstrong

McFarland, J. — In this case there was a decision in

Department affirming the judgment. A hearing in Bank was ordered, mainly because a number of cases involving the doctrine of the dedication of streets to the public were either then under advisement or had recently been decided; and it was thought best to again carefully ' compare the case at bar with the others. After further consideration, we are satisfied with the opinion delivered in Department. There is nothing in that opinion inconsistent with People v. Reed, 81 Cal. 70, or City of Eureka v. Croghan, 81 Cal. 524. The sale of land described [624]as bounding on a certain street is at least an offer of dedication of the street; and we think, as stated in the opinion of Department Two, that the resolution of the city council was an acceptance before any attempt at revocation.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thornton, J., Fox, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Beatty, C. J., dissented.

The following is the opinion of Department Two above referred to, rendered on the 4tli of December, 1889.—

Hayne, C. — This was an action of ejectment brought by the city of Eureka to recover a portion of an alleged street called Twelfth Street, of which the defendant was in possession. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Twelfth Street was an open public street for some distance to the east of the property in controversy, which would be covered by the street if extended westerly. In order to prove that it was so extended, the plaintiff put in evidence a deed to one Bowman, made in 1883 by the defendant, w'ho was then the owner of the property. The description in this deed was as follows: —

“Beginning at the southwest corner of Twelfth and F Streets; running thence south along the west line of F Street 55 "feet; thence west parallel with Twelfth Street 120 feet; thence north parallel with F Street 55 feet, to Twelfth Street; and thence east along the south line of Twelfth Street 120 feet, to the place of beginning.”

The portion of Twelfth Street to and along which those lines were run was the extension claimed by the plaintiff here. If the deed did not constitute a dedication (see Kittle v. Pfeiffer, 22 Cal. 489), it was at least .an offer to dedicate, and the offer must be construed to relate to the whole block, and not merely to 120 feet thereof;