Logan v. Rose
Before: Foote
Synopsis
Dedication of Streets — Map and Sales of Lots — Offer of Dedication. — The making of a map of a town by the owner of land, upon which blocks and streets are laid out, and the sale of lots with reference thereto, constitute an offer of dedication of the streets as delineated upon the map.
Id. — Acceptance — Public User of Part.—The user by the public of part of the width of a street delineated upon the map, to the extent of eighty feet out of a proposed width of one hundred and fifty feet, constitutes an acceptance of the dedication, and makes it complete to the extent of the user.
Id. — Revocation — Deed of Part — Lessening Width. — Where the public user of eighty feet of the width of the proposed street has continued for a long time prior to any attempt to revoke the offer of dedication, the owner of the land cannot by a subsequent deed of ninety feet in width of the street as originally proposed reduce its width to sixty feet.
Id. — Dedication by Holder of Deed in Trust. — It cannot be objected that the dedication was made by the holder of a deed in trust who had no authority from the beneficial owner to make it, if both the trustee and the beneficial owner sold land with reference to it, and the street was accepted by the public by using it as a street and highway as against both of them.
Id. —Presumption of Title. —If there is nothing on the face of a deed to indicate a trust capacity in the grantee, and no evidence is given as to the character of the trust, he must be presumed to have taken the fee-simple title to the land, and to have been authorized to dedicate a street.
Foote, C. This action was for damage against Rose as road-master, and the other defendants as his employers, advisers, etc., for the removal of embankments or approaches to the plaintiffs’ warehouses.
[264]At the trial, on the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case, it appeared that neither Gray, Streeter, nor Smith, three of the defendants, had anything to do with the matter, so that a nonsuit was granted as to them.
After the argument and submission of the case, the court, sitting without a jury, gave judgment in favor of the defendant Rose for costs, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on its merits. From the judgment, and an order denying a new trial, the plaintiffs appeal.
They claimed the right to use and possess the land in controversy under a lease from the Central Pacific Railroad Company, who had derived its title by deed from Charles Crocker, and he by deed from the Contract and Finance Company. The defendants claimed that the land was dedicated to the use of the public as a street in the town of Biggs, in Butte County, before the plaintiffs obtained their lease.
The main question at issue here is, whether the tenth finding of fact in reference to that dedication is sustained by the evidence. The plaintiffs claim that the street was dedicated only to the extent of sixty feet in width, but admit that if the dedicated width was of as much as eighty feet, then the judgment and order should be affirmed.
• The theory of the case as presented by the appellants seems to be, that Charles Crocker (in whom the legal title was vested by the Contract and Finance Company on October 26,1875), by his deed of April 28,1886, conveying to the Central Pacific Railroad Company a strip of laud ninety feet wide, which was a part of the land he acquired by his deed from the Contract and Finance Company, revoked any offer of dedication of the land in controversy as a street which had been before made, and that this revocation took place prior to any acceptance by the public of the street.
There was evidence which tended to show that as early as 1870 or 1871 there was a map made of the town of [265]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)