City of Evanston v. Robinson
Decision Date | 11 July 1985 |
Docket Number | Nos. 84-86,84-87,s. 84-86 |
Citation | 702 P.2d 1283 |
Parties | CITY OF EVANSTON, Wyoming, a Wyoming municipal corporation, Appellant (Defendant), Cities Service Company, a corporation; Amoco Production Company, a corporation; Mesa Petroleum Company, a corporation; and Burton/Hawks, Inc., a corporation; Rex L. Randolph; Steve C. Champlin; R. Downs Poindexter; Grady Vaughn; Albert Sklar; R.K. O'Connell; Rainbow Resources, Inc.; Terra Resources, Inc.; EMC Energies, Inc.; Frank L. Schulte; Horizon Oil & Gas Co.; William R. Dixon; Husky Oil Co.; First Interstate Bank of Casper, N.A.; Bill Hawks; Guy Burton, Jr.; Bill D. Farleigh; and Williams Exploration Company, (Defendants), v. George L. ROBINSON and Sarah J. Robinson, husband and wife; Kilburn Porter and Nellie Evaline Porter, husband and wife, Appellees (Plaintiffs). Burton/Hawks, Inc., a corporation; Rex L. Randolph; Steve C. Champlin; R. Downs Poindexter; Grady Vaughn; Albert Sklar; R.K. O'Connell; Rainbow Resources, Inc.; Terra Resources, Inc.; EMC Energies, Inc.; Frank L. Schulte; Horizon Oil & Gas Co.; William R. Dixon; Husky Oil Co.; First Interstate Bank of Casper, N.A.; Bill Hawks; Guy Burton, Jr.; Bill D. Farleigh; and Williams Exploration Company, Appellants (Defendants), CITY OF EVANSTON, Wyoming, a Wyoming municipal corporation; Cities Service Company, a corporation; Amoco Production Company, a corporation; Mesa Petroleum Company, a corporation, (Defendants), v. George L. ROBINSON and Sarah J. Robinson, husband and wife; Kilburn Porter and Nellie Evaline Porter, husband and wife, Appellees (Plaintiffs). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Dennis W. Lancaster of Phillips, Lancaster & Thomas, P.C., Evanston, for appellant in Case No. 84-86.
Houston G. Williams and Richard L. Williams of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for appellants in Case No. 84-87.
Charles D. Phillips, Evanston, Frank J. Allen, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellees.
Before THOMAS, C.J. * , and ROSE, ROONEY **, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
These appeals present a single issue for review:
"Does the City of Evanston have such right, title or interest in the streets and alleys of the City as will allow the City to grant a valid oil and gas lease covering the oil and gas underlying the streets and alleys?"
The case arose as a class action by property owners in Evanston, Wyoming, seeking a declaration of the rights to oil, gas and other minerals underlying the streets and alleys abutting their lots. The district court determined that the City had acquired no rights or interest in the minerals as a result of the dedication of the streets and alleys to the public use. Accordingly, the court entered summary judgment denying the claims to the underlying minerals asserted by the City, its mineral lessee, and the lessee's assignees. We will affirm.
Members of the class involved in this litigation own property in the original Town of Evanston or in subsequently developed subdivisions. The plat of the original town was recorded August 19, 1870, and specified areas were dedicated to the public use:
"I, Grenville M. Dodge, being Agent and Trustee for the Union Pacific Railroad Co. as owner of the lands, lots and premises described and shown on the foregoing plat do designate and name the Town of Evanston, and dedicate the Streets, Alleys, and Public grounds therefor shown on Said Plat to the public use."
No statute governed the effect of filing a plat or dedicating streets and alleys at the time that the original town was established.
The plats for all of the other subdivisions involved in this case were filed between 1885 and 1950 and are subject to the Platting and Dedication Act, §§ 34-12-101 through 34-12-104, 34-12-106 through 34-12-115, W.S.1977. These plats included or had attached language of dedication similar to the following example:
The district court did not determine the extent, if any, of the property owners' rights in the minerals, but directed the entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P., so that the City, Burton/Hawks, and the assignees of Burton/Hawks could perfect immediate appeals to this court. 1
When the plat of the original Town of Evanston was filed in August, 1870, the Territory of Wyoming had no laws in effect concerning the platting of subdivisions or the dedication of property. The territorial legislature had repealed all laws enacted by the Territory of Dakota which might have affected the question of ownership under a dedication. Chapter 84, Laws of the Wyoming Territory, 1869. Consequently, the common law governs the dedication of streets and alleys in the original plat. Gay Johnson's Wyoming Automotive Service Co., Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, Wyo., 367 P.2d 787 (1961).
We have held that dedication of streets and alleys at common law creates an easement:
" * * * Under common law, at dedication the public or municipality acquires an easement in the streets and alleys, but the fee remains in the original proprietor or abutting owner." Gay Johnson's Wyoming Automotive Service Co., Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, supra, 367 P.2d at 788.
The City's interest under a common-law dedication is sufficient to accommodate the use of the property by the public for street and related purposes, but the City acquires no interest in the minerals underlying the streets. Leadville v. Coronado Mining Co., 37 Colo. 234, 86 P. 1034 (1906); Lambach v. Mason, 368 Ill. 41, 53 N.E.2d 601 (1944).
Appellants contend that the dedicatory language associated with the original town plat is broad enough to overcome this common-law rule. The phrase "dedicate[d] * * * to the public use," according to appellants, indicates that the dedicator intended to convey the street areas for more public uses than streets alone. For example, the City has the right to lay sewer and utility lines beneath the surfaces of streets, appellants point out. See Ruby Drilling Co., Inc. v. Billingsly, Wyo., 660 P.2d 377 (1983). Other permissible, subsurface uses would include the mining of oil and gas to obtain revenues for the public coffers, appellants submit. If the dedicator intended to reserve an interest in the minerals beneath the streets, it should have restricted the general dedicatory language, appellants conclude.
We cannot agree that the addition of the phrase "to the public use" enlarges the effect of a common-law dedication. By definition, a dedication of property is an expression of the owner's intent to devote that property to the public use:
11 McQuillin, Mun Corp § 33.02, p. 636 (3rd ed.).
City of Phoenix v. Landrum & Mills Realty Co., 71 Ariz. 382, 227 P.2d 1011, 1013 (1951).
See also Hand v. Rhodes, 125 Colo. 508, 245 P.2d 292, 295 (1952); 4 Tiffany, The Law of Real Property, § 1101, p. 574 (3rd ed. 1975).
The dedicatory language attached to the plat of the original Town of Evanston simply expresses the owner's intent to devote the delineated streets and alleys to the public use, in compliance with the elements of a lawful dedication. Under the law of the Territory of Wyoming applicable at the time, such dedication transferred only an easement. Gay Johnson's Wyoming Automotive Service Co., Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, supra. Therefore, the streets and alleys in the original town plat were appropriated for public passage and not for the multiple uses envisioned by appellants.
The fact that the public's interest as an easement holder encompasses the right to install utility lines under the streets does not compel the conclusion that the City has the right to remove minerals underlying the streets. Courts have historically recognized that a city's interest in dedicated streets and alleys includes the right to use so much of the ground underneath as might be required for laying gas and water pipes, building sewers, and for other related municipal purposes. Ruby Drilling Co., Inc. v. Billingsly, supra; City of Leadville v. Bohn Mining Company, 37 Colo. 248, 86 P. 1038 (1906). Elliott's treatise, The Law of Roads and Streets, contains the following comprehensive definition...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Statewide Collections, Inc., 88-285
......Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 737 P.2d 350, clarified on reh. 745 P.2d 58 (Wyo.1987); City of Evanston v. Robinson, 702 P.2d 1283 (Wyo.1985); McArtor v. State, 699 P.2d 288 (Wyo.1985). . ......
-
Sare v. Sheridan County Bd. of County Com'rs
...... City of Evanston v. Robinson, 702 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo.1985) (emphasis added) (quoting 11 E. McQuillin, ......
-
Clay v. Mountain Valley Mineral Ltd. P'ship
...... Id. at 430–31. See also Evanston v. Robinson, 702 P.2d 1283, 1289 (Wyo.1985) ; Williams v. Watt, 668 P.2d 620, 624–25 ......
-
McGee v. Caballo Coal Co.
......Co. v. Guild Trust, 636 F.2d 261, 265 (10th Cir.1980) and City of Evanston v. Robinson, 702 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo.1985), along with Wyo. Const. art. 15, § 3; ......
-
CHAPTER 16 EXAMINATION OF TRACTS WITHIN TOWNSITES
...the centerline presumption in other jurisdictions). [109] Id. at 1186 (Citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-12-104, City of Evanston v. Robinson, 702 P.2d 1283 (Wyo. 1985), Ohio Oil Co. v. Wyoming Agency, 179 P.2d 773 (Wyo. 1947)). [110] Moorcroft at 1185. [111] Id. [112] See id. at 1186 ("The sale ......