Giltner v. City Council of Albia

• Decision Date: 23 October 1905
• Citation: 128 Iowa 658,105 N.W. 194
• Parties: GILTNER v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF ALBIA ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

128 Iowa 658

105 N.W. 194

GILTNER

v.CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF ALBIA ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 23, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Monroe County; M. A. Roberts, Judge.

The plaintiff presented a plat, designated as “Giltner's Second Addition to Albia, Iowa,” to the council of that city for approval. This being refused, action in mandamus was instituted to compel such approval and certification thereof by the mayor and clerk. The petition was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.N. E. Kendall and W. E. Giltner, for appellant.

I. H. Tomlinson, for appellees.

LADD, J.

Plaintiff was owner of a tract of land in the city of Albia at its eastern boundary, and caused it to be surveyed and platted in six suburban lots, designated “blocks”; each conforming in size with other blocks of the city. Between and on the sides of these lots were streets corresponding with others of the city, but there were no subdivisions into ordinary lots, and there were no alleys. Save in these respects, it is conceded that the plat complied with the requirements of the statute. Upon the presentation to the city council for approval that body withheld the same until “alleys are platted through said blocks and dedicated to the public to conform to the blocks, lots, and alleys of the said city of Albia.” Plaintiff had already sold three blocks, and each of two purchasers was residing upon and occupying the entire block, while two others resided upon and occupied one-half block each. These facts were stipulated, and also that “the right of the writ of mandamus to be issued as prayed for by plaintiff is conceded by defendant, provided plaintiff has complied with all the requirements of the law relative to said plat on his part; and this cause is submitted to the court on the single proposition, to wit: Has the said council the right to refuse and withhold its approval of said plat for the sole reason that one alley 16 1/2 feet in width and extending from the east to the west side or one alley 16 1/2 feet in width and extending from the north to the south side of each and every block and located in the center thereof, is not surveyed, platted, and dedicated to the public therein?”

The only question raised, then, is whether the council had the right to insist upon the dedication of an alley through each block as a condition precedent to its approval of the plat, which was essential to the recording thereof. Section 915 of the Code. But, to entitle the proprietor to such approval, it is only necessary that such plat comply with the provisions of the statutes. The city council can consider it for no purpose other...