Collins v. Board of County Commissioners of Big Horn County

• Citation: 20 Wyo. 517,126 P. 465
• Decision Date: 24 September 1912
• Docket Number: 711
• Parties: COLLINS v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BIG HORN COUNTY ET AL
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

126 P. 465

20 Wyo. 517

COLLINS v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BIG HORN COUNTY ET AL

No. 711

Supreme Court of Wyoming

September 24, 1912

ERROR to the District Court, Big Horn County; HON. CARROLL H PARMELEE, Judge.

The action was brought by W. S. Collins, in his own behalf and in behalf of citizens and taxpayers of the County of Big Horn against the board of county commissioners of said county and the individual members of said board, to enjoin the defendants from selling, donating or conveying to the United States certain real estate in the town of Basin, the county seat of said county; the plaintiff claiming that said real estate had been dedicated or conveyed to the county for courthouse purposes in such a manner as to deprive the county or county board of power to dispose of the same for any other purpose. The case was heard in the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts, whereupon the injunction was denied, the petition dismissed, and judgment entered against the plaintiff for costs. The plaintiff brought error. The other material facts are stated in the opinion.

Affirmed.

W. S Collins, for plaintiff in error.

A dedication must be construed with reference to its object. The power to divert property from the purpose for which it has been donated does not exist. The official plat of the townsite of Basin was a dedication of the block designated "Courthouse Square" to the County of Big Horn to be held in trust for the use of the public for courthouse purposes. If the court may say that there is more ground in the block than is necessary for courthouse purposes, it might also say that all the ground outside the walls of the courthouse shall be divided into lots and sold. A court of equity may enforce the execution of this plainly declared trust, either upon the application of the owners of lots abutting on the courthouse square, or any citizen and taxpayer of the county. (Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Ry. Co., 67 Ill. 544; Princeville v. Anten, 77 Ill. 325; U. S. v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co., 154 U.S. 255; Yolo Co. v. Barney, 12 Am. St. Rep. 152; 79 Cal. 375; 2 Dillon on Munic. Corp., Sec. 533.) No particular form is necessary in dedicating land to public use; all that is required is the assent of the land owner, and the fact of its use for public purposes intended by the appropriation. (Cincinnati v. White's Lessee, 6 Pet. 440; 5 Ency. L. (1st Ed.) 417, 418.)

Upon the agreed statement of facts a complete dedication is shown, and that the land now sought to be appropriated for a site for a federal building is a part of the courthouse square, and has been recognized as such since the year 1896, when the survey was made and the plat adopted by the Department of the Interior, and confirmed by patent from the United States. It has always been so recognized by adjacent land owners, the municipality and the public generally. The plaintiff purchased lots facing on the square in reliance upon such facts, and defendants, by the construction of a temporary jail in 1897 on the square, and afterwards a courthouse and permanent jail thereon, and acquiescence in the cultivation of the ground and the setting out of shade trees by the municipal authorities and the citizens thereof, have accepted the dedication. The law applicabble to the facts denied the right of the county board to now dispose of any part of this land for other purposes. (Riverside v. Maclain, 210 Ill. 308, 71 N.E. 408, 102 Am. St. Rep. 170; Clark v. McCormick, 174 Ill. 164, 51 N.E. 215; Zearing v. Raber, 74 Ill. 409; San Leandro v. LeBreton, 72 Cal. 170, 13 P. 405; Church v. Portland, 22 P. 528.) A distinction should be made between cases where a public square is dedicated without restriction and where there is a restriction to a particular purpose. The grant to the county in 1902, and the naming of the same as "Courthouse Square" by the deputy surveyor on the plat of the townsite in 1896 were express grants, and the owners of lots separated by a street from said square have an easement of light and air. (Greene v. R. R. Co., 65 How. Prac. 154.)

The land comprised in the courthouse square is now valuable, and should the Federal building occupy the space intended in the southeast corner of the square others stand ready to divide the remaining portion, and there will be no end to the division until the place will disappear as one of the public squares and valuable public places in the town.

R. B. West, County Attorney, for the defendants in error.

The mere act of filing the plat did not constitute a dedication of the block marked "Courthouse Square" the land to the public, so as to restrict the sale and transfer of the tract. The right of disposal of the public domain of the United States rests primarily and solely in Congress, and can only be exercised by that body or by agents or officers authorized to so act. The trustees appointed to sell the townsite did not have authority to dedicate any portion thereof for any purpose. (32 Cyc. 843.) No one was acting for the government prior to the Act of Congress of 1902 or the patent of 1904, who had power to bind the United States and consequently could have passed nothing by way of dedication by the filing of a map in 1896. The government is not bound by the unauthorized acts of its agents. (16 Cyc. 780; Wallace v. Maxwell, 51 Am. Dec. 380; Taylor v. Shufford, 15 Am. Dec. 512; Felor v. U.S. 9 Wall. 45.) Nor is an individual bound by those acting for it in a representative capacity, if they were not his direct privies. (Grunert v. Spaulding, 80 N.W. 589; Arlington Bank v. Paulson, 80 N.W. 263.) The doctrine of estoppel cannot apply, under the circumstances of this case, to the government, and the government, therefore, was not bound by the filing of a map and plat as an individual might have been, and any title acquired by Big Horn county to the land in question was acquired by the Congressional Grant of 1902, and the patent issued in pursuance thereof. Upon the construction of said act and patent the title of the county must depend. It is the contention of the defendants that the Act of Congress and patent conveyed title in fee to the county, and that the commissioners, therefore, have a perfect right to sell all or any part of the land, the same as any other real estate belonging to the county. Neither the act nor the patent contained any provision for forfeiture or reversion. (Township v. Herman, 71 P. 517.)

BEARD, CHIEF JUSTICE. SCOTT, J., and POTTER, J., concur.

OPINION

BEARD, CHIEF JUSTICE.

The plaintiff in error, W. S. Collins, in his own behalf and in behalf of all the citizens and taxpayers of the County of Big Horn, State of Wyoming, brought this action in the District Court of said county to enjoin the defendants in error, the board of county commissioners of said county, from selling, donating or conveying to the United States certain real estate in the town of Basin in said county. The case was submitted to the court upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts. The court denied an injunction, dismissed the petition and entered judgment against plaintiff for costs. He brings the case here on error.

The facts as stipulated are as follows:

"1. That in the month of June, 1896, the east one-half (E 1/2) of the northwest quarter (NW 1/4), and the west half (W 1/2) of the northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of section twenty-one (21) township fifty-one (51), north of range ninety-three (93) west, of the sixth principal meridian, was surveyed and platted under what is known as the Government Townsite Laws. Upon said plat was a tract of land containing about ten acres which was designated thereon as the 'Courthouse Square.' That thereafter the government sold a number of lots situated on said townsite, and by Act of Congress of April 2nd, 1902, donated to the town of Basin the remainder of said lots. The tract designated as a 'Courthouse Square' was donated to the County of Big Horn. Said map of said town of Basin containing the plat designated as the 'Courthouse Square' was accepted by the United States government as the official plat of said tract of land. A patent was issued to the town of Basin for the unsold town lots to be used for the use and purpose of said town. A patent was issued to the County of Big Horn for the tract of land known as the 'Courthouse Square.' A true and correct copy of said Act of Congress and the said patent appears in the petition of the plaintiff.

"2. That thereafter the County of Big Horn entered into possession of said tract of land and erected thereon, near the center thereof, a building which was used by said county as a courthouse, being an office building for the county officers and the county jail, but the District Court never having been held there.

"3. That during the year of 1909, Congress adopted a resolution appropriating a sum of money for the purpose of purchasing a site for a Federal building in the town of Basin. The board of county. commissioners of Big Horn county offered for sale a portion of the tract of land, known as the 'Courthouse Square,' being a tract of land one hundred and fifty feet square, located in the southeast corner thereof. On the particular tract of land offered for said Federal building site, no buildings have ever been erected, nor has any other occupancy been made thereof, by the County of Big Horn, the nearest county building being about one hundred and fifty feet from the tract of land offered for sale for the Federal building site.

"4. Subsequent to offering said tract for sale to the United States the commissioners passed a resolution offering said tract to the United States for the sum of $ 1.00 and other valuable consideration. On or about the 29th day of April, 1911, the United States accepted said offer and the board of...