City of Fairfield v. Jemison

• Decision Date: 16 January 1969
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 569
• Citation: 283 Ala. 462,218 So.2d 273
• Parties: CITY OF FAIRFIELD v. Robert JEMISON, Jr., et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 273

218 So.2d 273

283 Ala. 462

CITY OF FAIRFIELD v. Robert JEMISON, Jr., et al.

6 Div. 569.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 16, 1969.

Frank B. Parsons, Fairfield, for appellant.

Robt. Jemison, and others, pro se.

HARWOOD, Justice.

In May 1966, the Council of the City of Fairfield passed a resolution authorizing the Fairfield Chamber of Commerce to have paved the Plaza in downtown Fairfield, at no expense to the City of Fairfield.

The question of the validity of the Council's action having arisen, the City of Fairfield brought a declaratory action to have the question determined.

Named as respondents were Robert Jemison, Jr., as representative of the owners of any property of the Fairfield Land Company at the time of its dissolution, and Joseph J. Trucks, and Henry Hardy, as representatives of those residents of the City of Fairfield who oppose changing the use of the Plaza as contemplated by the resolution above mentioned.

On 21 March 1912, the Corey Land Company, of which Mr. Jemison was president, had recorded in the Probate Office of Jefferson County a properly notarized map or plat of the subdivision of Corey. The name of Corey was shortly changed to Fairfield, and the Corey Land Company likewise changed its name to Fairfield Land Company. The map or plat of Corey is the plat of the present City of Fairfield.

The platted area is divided into numbered lots and designated streets. Block 42 is not divided into lots and on the map is designated as 'The Plaza.'

Mr. Jemison testified that the land company 'developed at the expense of the company the Plaza as a feature and a point of interest in the downtown section of Fairfield where the public would have a place to assemble and where public meetings could be held and where people could get on and off busses and have a place in the center to assemble. And we could have made more money for our stockholders by not going to the expense of developing the Plaza.'

In response to a question by the attorney for the appellant, Mr. Jemison further testified that the word 'Plaza' was used on the theory that 'Plaza' or 'Park' * * * 'either one is a public space and is a dedication of that space to the public.'

The bill of complaint asserts that:

'The Plaza is bordered on the North by a street designated as 'North Plaza,' on the East by Cernegie (sic) Avenue, on the South by a street designated 'South Plaza,' and on the West by Gary Avenue. When the City of Fairfield (Corey) was laid out, the Plaza was improved by walkways, trees, and a semi-circular bench of brickwork including a small fountain and bowl.' (Par. ours.)

Mr. Trucks, a resident of Fairfield since 1920, testified that to his knowledge the Plaza, or Plaza Park, or the Park, as he sometimes referred to it, had during the years, not necessarily continuously, been used as follows: (a) benches at times had been placed in the area; (b) country fairs of a few days' duration were held there; (c) skaters used the walks; (d) Christmas trees and nativity scenes were created thereon during the Christmas season; (e) band concerts about twice a month throughout the summer months, were held and a children's band once played there on Sunday afternoons; (f) political gatherings at which candidates for national, state, and local offices would appear. President Theodore Roosevelt was photographed speaking in the Plaza around 1912.

According to Mr. Trucks, the care of the Plaza's landscaping has not been regular. The Fairfield Garden Club has four or five times planted 'beautiful' flowers. During one city administration many of the shrubs were dug up. Several years ago the city cut off the water to the fountain.

The evidence presented by the City of Fairfield was directed toward showing that it was the plan of the Chamber of Commerce to convert the Plaza into a parking lot. Evidence tending to show the desirability of such changed use in view of traffic conditions and requirements was also received.

At the conclusion of the hearing below, the court found that since the recording of the plat in 1912 by the Corey Land Company (Fairfield Land Company), the Plaza has been used continuously up to the time of the hearing by the City of Fairfield, and by the public, as a public park; that to change the Plaza into an automobile parking lot would be a substantially different use than that for which it was dedicated.

The court held therefore that the plan of the City of Fairfield, as evidenced by the resolution, 'to convert the public park known as The Plaza into a parking area for automobiles is contrary to law and therefore prohibited.'

In its decree the court set forth the following:

'The City contends that the area involved is a Plaza and not a Park, and that the law as to a plaza is different from that of a park. But the Court is of the opinion and so finds that the designation on the dedicatory plat is not controlling as to the true nature of the area. Such designation is merely the name given to that of a particular public park of the City of Fairfield. In size, development, use, and purposes in...