Balmat v. City of Argenta

• Decision Date: 27 March 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 276.)
• Citation: 184 S.W. 445
• Parties: BALMAT v. CITY OF ARGENTA et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

184 S.W. 445

BALMAT v. CITY OF ARGENTA et al.

(No. 276.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 27, 1916.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor.

Action by Frank Balmat against the City of Argenta and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Decree reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree for plaintiff.

Bratton & Bratton, of Little Rock, for appellant. Fred McDonald, of Argenta, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action instituted by appellant in the chancery court of Pulaski county to restrain the officers of the city of Argenta from breaking appellant's inclosure and tearing down his fences for the purpose of opening an alley. The officers of the city attempt to justify their invasion of the premises under a claim of dedication to the public by appellant's grantor. James H. Barton (who was appellant's immediate grantor) and James L. Davis formerly owned the property, and in the year 1887 platted it into city lots with intersecting streets and alleys indicated on the plat. The plat was duly acknowledged and filed for record, and attached thereto were field notes and the following statement, signed by the dedicators:

"Know all men by these presents that whereas, we, James H. Barton and James L. Davis, are the owners of the land described in the foregoing notes; and, whereas, we have caused the said land to be laid off into lots and blocks, streets and alleys as shown on the plat preceding said notes: Now, therefore, we hereby declare that the said land so laid off shall hereafter be known as Davis' addition to the town of Argenta, and the streets shall remain open highways forever, and the alleys shall remain open highways for the use of the owners of or residents upon the blocks through which they run, but the alley in any block may be closed at any time by all owners of lots in any such block duly executing, acknowledging, and placing on record in the recorder's office of Pulaski county a valid instrument of writing setting forth such closure."

Appellant subsequently purchased two lots from Barton, and the same were inclosed by a fence which included the portion indicated on the map as an alley running through the block, and that fence has been maintained by plaintiff to the present time, or at least until it was broken and the premises entered by the officers of the city.

The question in the case is whether or not there has ever been a dedication of the land in controversy to public use. The language of the writing is peculiar. It contains an express dedication of the streets indicated on the plat, but as to the alleys it provides that:

They "shall remain open highways for the use of the owners of or residents upon the blocks through which they run, but the alley in any block may be closed at any time by all owners of lots in any such block duly executing, acknowledging, and placing on record in the recorder's office of Pulaski county a valid instrument of writing setting forth such closure."

At the time of the alleged dedication we had in this state no statutory method of voluntary dedication of lands to public use as streets, alleys, and other public places, but the General Assembly of 1901 enacted a statute requiring persons and corporations to file plats of land situated in any city or town with the recorder of deeds. Kirby's Digest, §§ 5523, 5524.

There are two classes of common-law dedications, "express...