CROSS-REFERENCES.

Easements, see Easements.

See, also, Highways.

Definition.

1. (1877.) A dedication is defined to be the act of devoting or giving property for some proper object in such manner as to conclude the owner. It may be made by parol, and may be presumed from lapse of time. State, ex rel. Sims, v. Otoe County, Neb. 129.

Acknowledgment as deed to land.

2. (1897.) Under section 106, article 1, chapter 14, Compiled Statutes, the acknowledgment and registration of a plat subdividing tracts of land are equivalent to a deed in fee-simple of such portion of the premises platted as is on such plat set apart for streets and other public uses. Ehmen v. Village of Gothenburg, 50 Neb. 715 (70 N. W. 237).

Platting land as dedication in general.

3. (1894.) The plat of an addition to a city is not void because the owners of the land platted failed to acknowledge the plat. Pillsbury v. Alexander, 40 Neb. 242 (58 N. W. 859).

4. (1887.) Where the owners of real estate caused it to be surveyed as a town site and the plat thereof to be recorded, in which plat a square is marked and desig

nated therein as "College Square," the lots in blocks, abutting thereon, being only one half the size of other lots in that part of the plat, and so laid out as to front to the square, and held at a higher valuation by reason thereof in order to secure compensa tion for the land included in such square, it was held, that there was a dedication of College Square to the public, with a right to the use thereof for the purpose of an institution of learning so long as the user continued; the title remaining in the public as represented by the municipal corporation (after being incorporated) for that use, and ejectment will lie to remove any person unlawfully in possession. Weeping Water t. Reed, 21 Neb. 261 (31 N. W. 797).

5. (1897.) Where land is platted into a town site, and signed by all of the several owners save one, whose name was signed by one of the other as "attorney" and the one not signing afterward conveyed his land to another who recognized the validity of the plat, under section 115, chapter 14, of Compiled Statutes, the execution and recording of the plat as amended February 8, 1869, and was equivalent to deed absolute. Weeping Water v. Reed, 21 Neb. 261 (31 N. W. 797). 6. (1897.) The statute provides for the acknowldgment and recording of plats subdividing tracts of land, and that the ac knowledgment and recording of such a plat is equivalent to a deed in fee-simple of such

use.

portion of the premises platted as is on such plat set apart for streets and other public Held, That under this statute a plat, properly acknowledged and recorded, showing the subdivision of land into blocks and lots with streets traversing the same, with a block in the center thereof not subdivided into lots and with no alley traversing the same as was the case with other blocks, said block being designated "Ehmen's Park" (Ehmen being the owner of the land subdivided), operated as a statutory dedication of that block for a public park. Ehmen v. Village of Gothenburg, 50 Neb. 715 (70 N. W. 237).

Revocation before acceptance.

7. (1883.) A dedication of property by the state to a private corporation in trust for a public use may be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance. The bringing of an action to recover from a subsequent donee is not an acceptance. State Historical Ass'n v. City of Lincoln, 14 Neb. 336 (15 N. W 717).

Reservation by grantor.

8. (1897.) In view of the owner's name to designate a park granted by him, the use of the term "Ehmen's Park" cannot be taken to imply a reservation of the land for Ehmen's private use. Ehmen v. Village of Gothenburg, 50 Neb. 715 (70 N. W. 237). Highways, streets and alleys.

Right to acquire by dedication.

9. (1880.) The public may acquire by dedication from the owner an easement in land for the purpose of travel. Graham v. Hartnett, 10 Neb. 517 (7 N. W. 280).

Right to dedicate.

10. (1888.) Where a party has entered land under the homestead law of the United State, and made final proof, and complied with the law on his part to entitle him to a patent, he may make a valid dedication of a portion of said land for a public road, although the patent has not been issued. Rube v. Sullivan, 23 Neb. 779 (37 N. W. 666).

11. (1890.) To establish the existence of a highway by dedication by deed it must appear that the grantor was the owner of the land when the dedication was made. Warren v. Brown, 31 Neb. 8 (47 N. W. 633).

12. (1898.) An effectual statutory dedication of land for use as a public street cannot result from the filing of a plat, in the office of the county clerk or register of deeds,

by one who is not the owner of the fee. Lewis v. City of Lincoln, 55 Neb. 1 (75 Neb. 154).

Who may accept.

13. (1906.) In order to constitute a highway by dedication, it is not necessary that the offer of dedication be accepted by the public authorities, it may be accepted by the public itself. Cassidy v. Sullivan, 75 Neb. 847 (106 N. W. 1027).

Title and rights acquired. 14. (1898.) Where land is surveyed and platted into an addition to a city, the fee simple title to the streets and alleys of the addition vests in the public. Jaynes Omaha Street R. Co., 53 Neb. 631 (74 N. W. 67; 39 L. R. A. 751).

15.

v.

(1898.) The dedication of streets in a platted addition to a city contemplates the right of the public to use them for the purpose of passage by such means as it may see fit to employ, but the grant does not contemplate that one may exclusively and permanently appropriate a portion of a street to the exclusion of the remainder of the public. Jaynes v. Omaha Street R. Co., 53 Neb. 631 (74 N. W. 67; 39 L. R. A. 751).

Acts constituting dedication.

16. (1882.) Where the owner of a tract of land adjoining the city of Lincoln laid out the same into additions to said city and filed plats upon which "K" street was marked as if laid out, and lots were sold fronting thereon, but the description merely extended to the outer line of the street, there was sufficient dedication of the street. Gregory v. Lincoln, 13 Neb. 352 (14 N. W. 423).

17. (1884.) Where a deed containing description by metes and bounds describes one line as an alley when in fact there was no such alley, the land not having been platted, and such knowledge was known by the purchaser, there is no dedication of the alley to the city, thus giving the purchaser the rights to a public alley. Bushman v. Gibson, 15 Neb. 676 (20 N. W. 106).

18. (1894.) The state of Nebraska sold to Arnold & Abbott certain land and gave them a contract for a deed; Arnold & Abbott caused this land to be surveyed and platted into lots, blocks, and streets, and designated as "Arnold & Abbott's Addition to Grand Island." They did not attach or acknowledge or sign a certificate to such plat as required by section 105, chapter 14, Compiled Statutes, 1893. They caused said plat

20. (1890.) To establish the existence of a highway by dedication by deed it must appear that the grantor was the owner of the land when the dedication was made. Warren v. Brown, 31 Neb. 8 (47 N. W. 633).

Acceptance by public.

21. (1880.) If acts alone of the owner be relied on to prove it, they must be such as to clearly manifest an intention to dedicate, and the public must have so acted with reference it as to indicate an acceptance thereof. Graham v. Hartnett, 10 Neb. 517 (7 N. W. 280).

22. (1890.) Where the acts of the owner of the land are relied on to establish a dedication of land for the purpose of a public road, an acceptance of the same by the public must be proved. Warren v. Brown, 31 Neb. 8 (47 N. W. 633).

23. (1906.) The acceptance by the public itself is shown by its entering upon the land and enjoying the privilege offered by user. Cassidy v. Sullivan, 75 Neb. 847 (106 N. W. 1027).

23a. (1907.) An acceptance of the dediation of lands of the general government, for road purposes, made by section 2477, Re

vised Statutes U. S., may be shown by the acts of the public authorities, or by the acts of the public itself. Van Wanning v. Deeter, 78 Neb. 282 (110 N. W. 703).

24. (1907.) The acceptance of a grant of land to a county for road purposes may be shown by proof that the public authorities afterwards assumed control over it and improved a portion of it, and that it was used by the public as a highway. Lyons v. Mullen, 78 Neb. 151 (110 N. W. 743).

Intent to dedicate.

25. (1880.) To establish the existence of a public road by dedication the clear assent of the owner of the land must be shown. Graham v. Hartnett, 10 Neb. 517 (7 N. W. 280).

26. (1880.) If acts alone of the owner be relied on to prove dedication, they must be such as to clearly manifest an intention to dedicate, and the public must have so acted with reference to it as to indicate an acceptance thereof. Graham v. Hartnett, 10 Neb. 517 (7 N. W. 280).

27. (1880.) An entry in the county com. missioners' record, purporting to be a statement to the county clerk that the owner of land, for a stated consideration, had agreed to release the county from the payment of damages awarded him for locating a public road across his land, is not competent evidence against him, without showing that he either made or authorized the statement. Graham v. Hartnett, 10 Neb. 517 (8 N. W. 280).

28. (1888.) Unless there is some clear and unequivocal manifestation of an intention to dedicate, dedication will not be presumed until after the lapse of ten years. Rube v. Sullivan, 23 Neb. 779 (37 N. W. 666).

29. (1888.) A party owning land, in fencing the same, left a strip along the seetion line, a rod or more in width, apparently for the use of the public for a public road, and it was traveled as such; but there was no proof of dedication or an intention to dedicate any of the land within the enclos ure. Held, That without such proof the jury would not be justified in finding that any of the land within the enclosure had been dedi cated to public use, and, therefore, a road overseer who removed the fence as an obstruction to the highway would be liable for the trespass, Rube v. Sullivan, 23 Neb. 779 (37 N. W. 666).

30. (1894.) In order to establish the existence of a public highway over private

property by dedication the animus dedicendi is essential, and must be clearly proved. Brown v. Stein, 38 Neb. 596 (57 N. W. 401). 31. (1896.) Where the acts of an owner of real estate are relied upon to prove that he has dedicated it to the public the acts must be such as to clearly manifest an intention on his part to dedicate it, and the public must have so acted with reference to the property as to indicate an intention of acceptance of the property dedicated. City of Omaha v. Hawver, 49 Neb. 1 (67 N. W. 891).

32. (1896.) Acts of an owner which amount to a dedication of his property to the public must be such as indicate an abandonment of the use of the property exclusively to the public. City of Omaha v. Hawver, 49 Neb. 1 (67 N. W. 891).

33. (1902.) To constitute a valid dedication of private property for a public highway, it must clearly appear that the owner intended to dedicate the land for a highway, and that the public by user or otherwise accepted the land for that purpose. Close v. Swanson, 64 Neb. 389 (89 N. W. 1043).

34. (1903.) The allegation that private property has been dedicated to a public use, can only be established from declarations or circumstances showing that the owner intended to make the donation in question. Langan v. Whalen, 67 Neb. 299 (93 N. W. 393).

Cassidy v. Sullivan, 75 Neb.

by the owners. 847 (106 N. W. 1027). 39.

(1907.) To prove an implied dedication of a road to the public as a highway and the acceptance thereof by the public, it is not necessary to prove that the public authorities have improved or repaired the road, where the evidence showed that it rquired no improving or repairing to fit it for public travel. Brandt v. Olson, 79 Neb. 612 (113 N. W. 151).

40. (1907.) Evidence of ten years' use by the public of a road through cultivated land without substantial variance, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner for a period of ten years, raises the presumption of an implied dedication and acceptance of such road as a public highway. Brandt v. Olson, 79 Neb. 612 (113 N. W. 151).

Plats and recognition.

41. (1884.) The city of O. having been in fact laid out into lots, blocks, streets, and squares more than twenty-five years ago, during all of which time the same have been used, enjoyed, and the lots taxed as such, held, that a decision of the supreme court that such lots have no legal existence for the reason that no plat or map of said city has ever been filed or recorded, would be against public policy, and a discussion of authorities which might logically lead to such a decision, declared inexpedient. Bryant v. Estabrook, 16 Neb. 217 (20 N. W. 245).

42. (1898.) The owners of real estate situated within the corporate limits of a city subdivided and platted the same. On the recorded plat, L street, which the public authorities had previously undertaken to establish, was indicated as being 66 feet wide, and the surveyor's certificate, in effect, declared that to be its width. The owners of the subdivision built houses on said street as shown on the plat, and along the same constructed a sidewalk, of which the general public enjoyed the unhindered use. They also mortgaged some of the lots, and represented to the mortgagee, as an inducement to make the loan, that such lots were located on L street. Held, That the finding of the trial court that L street is a thoroughfare 66 feet wide was warranted by the evidence, and should be sustained. McCague v. Miller, 55 Neb. 762 (76 N. W. 422).

Abandonment, and use by public.

43. (1880.) The building of a bridge by the county on a road leading to and across

the plaintiff's land, he not being either by word or deed connected therewith, is no proof against him of dedication. Graham v. Hartnett, 10 Neb. 517 (7 N. W. 280).

44. (1882.) A public road over wild unenclosed prairie lands cannot be established by mere user, yet where the testimony shows that the landowner assisted in staking out and afterwards dedicated such road to the public, which accepted and worked the same, the ry will be justified in finding the establishment of such public road. Rathman v. Norenberg, 21 Neb. 467 (32 N. W. 305).

45. (1888.) Ten years' uninterrupted use of a public road will create a presumption of dedication, but a much shorter period will be sufficient, where the act of the owner from which the dedication is inferred is clear and unequivocal, and accompanied or immediately followed by public use. Rube v. Sulli

van, 23 Neb. 779 (37 N. W. 666).

46. (1888.) A party owning land, in fencing the same, left a strip along the section line a rod or more in width, apparently for the use of the public for a public road, and it was traveled as such; but there was no proof of dedication or an intention to dedicate any of the land within the enclosure. Held, That without such proof the jury would not be justified in finding that any of

the land within the enclosure had been dedi cated to public use, and, therefore, a road overseer who removed the fence as an ob struction to the highway would be liable for the trespass, Rube v. Sullivan, 23 Neb. 779 (37 N. W. 666).

47. (1901.) Evidence of long continued use by the public tends to show the estab lishment of a road by dedication over the public domain. So also does the surveying marking out, platting and improvement of a road by the public authorities. Streeter r. Stalnaker, 61 Neb. 205 (85 N. W. 47).

48. (1903.) The passive permission by the owner of lands of the use of them by the public, is not alone sufficient evidence of an intent to dedicate them to such ust. Postal v. Martin, 4 Unof. 534 (95 N. W. 8)

49. (1905.) Evidence of user, and of sur veying, platting and otherwise improving by public authorities, examined, and held suf ficient to show the establishment of a pub lic road by dedication. Eldridge v. Collins, 75 Neb. 65 (105 N. W. 1085).

50. (1906.) Evidence showing use by the public for twenty years as a highway sustains a finding of dedication to the public by the owners. Cassidy v. Sullivan, 75 Neb. 847 (106 N. W. 1027).

1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and essentials in general. What law governs, § 1.