Davidson v. City of Birmingham
| Decision Date | 06 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 80. |
| Citation | 101 So. 878,212 Ala. 123 |
| Parties | DAVIDSON ET AL. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William M. Walker Judge.
Bill in equity by the City of Birmingham against Sam Davidson and others. From a decree for complainant, respondents appeal. Affirmed.
Haley & Haley, of Birmingham, for appellants.
W. J Wynn and W. M. Woodall, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
The bill of complaint is filed by the city of Birmingham, and seeks by writ of injunction to compel the removal of obstructions placed by the respondents upon a certain strip of land alleged to be a public street or highway of the city. The obstructions in question are houses and fences, or portions thereof, erected by respondents as owners of abutting premises, along, across, or obtruding upon the street.
The bill bases the existence of the street upon prescriptive user by the public for 20 years or more; and upon dedication by the original owners, as evidenced by maps and deeds made by them in 1871 and in following years.
The respondents deny the existence of any street or highway along the strip of land in question, and deny that they are obstructing any public highway, and deny the city's right to have it cleared of the alleged obstructions.
The trial court heard the testimony of the witnesses viva voce and on final hearing found and decreed that the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.
So far as the main question is concerned, we are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the owner or owners of this land as early as 1871 caused approximately this strip to be opened and used as a public roadway, and its present character as such can be supported either upon the doctrine of prescription, or upon express dedication by the owner. "A dedication may be made by a deed from the dedicator to an individual, in which the dedicator declares that a part of his land is subject to a public use, or excepts from the land conveyed a landing place and highway." 18 Corpus Juris, 56, 57, § 38, and the numerous cases cited. And by the annexation of the surrounding locality, it must, of course, have become a street of the city
The only point, it seems to us, upon which any controversy can reasonably arise, is found in the testimony of Mr. Webb, the city engineer who made an elaborate map of the locality, and by actual survey located the highway on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. City of Birmingham
...O'Rorke, supra, at 491-492; Thomas, supra, at 1098; Smith v. City of Dothan, 211 Ala. 338, 100 So. 501 (1924); Davidson v. City of Birmingham, 212 Ala. 123, 101 So. 878 (1924); 23 AM.JUR.2d, Dedication, § 28 (1983). Further, it is clear that a dedication is an unequivocal, affirmative act s......
-
Sam Raine Const. Co., Inc. v. Lakeview Estates, Inc.
...may be shown by a deed to an individual where the owner declares part of his land reserved to a public use. Davidson v. City of Birmingham, 212 Ala. 123, 101 So. 878 (1924). It is well established that common law dedication may be either expressed or implied. An implied dedication arises wh......
-
Cooper v. Town of Valley Head
... ... inhabitants of such territory are incorporated as a town or ... city; *** thereupon such town or city shall be vested with ... the rights and powers herein granted, ... 878.] ... Selma Street & Suburban Ry. Co. v. Owen, 132 Ala ... 420, 31 So. 598; Birmingham v. Tayloe, 105 Ala. 170, ... 16 So. 576 ... Affirmed ... ANDERSON, ... ...
-
Hall v. Polk
...may be shown by a deed to an individual where the owner declares part of his land reserved to a public use. Davidson v. City of Birmingham, 212 Ala. 123, 101 So. 878 (1924). The evidence below is sufficient to justify a finding of intent to dedicate on the part of the owner of land. Not onl......