Hobbs v. Ware County
Decision Date | 07 April 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 37246,37246 |
Citation | 247 Ga. 385,276 S.E.2d 575 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | HOBBS et al. v. WARE COUNTY, Georgia, et al. |
Jimmy J. Boatright, Alma, for H. A. Hobbs, Jr., et al.
C. Edwin Rozier, Waycross, for Ware County, Georgia et al.
Several residents of the Riverside Park subdivision in Ware County sought to enjoin the county from opening a street shown on their subdivision plat, but never opened. The trial court denied temporary relief and the residents appeal. We affirm.
Riverside Park subdivision was platted in 1906 and a copy of the plat was recorded in the county courthouse. The plat shows a street called Ware Street running between Blocks 14 and 15 of the subdivision, but the street has never been opened to or used by the public. Several lot owners, however, have used part of the street at both ends as driveways. In addition, the land set aside for the street has been used for agricultural and recreational purposes as well as for dog and horse pens. There is evidence that the county pushed some dirt to grade the above-mentioned driveways and has maintained a drainage ditch which crosses the street, but has otherwise not worked the street in any manner.
1. The recording of a subdivision plat raises a presumption of express dedication to the public. E.g., Ross v. Hall County Board of Commissioners, 235 Ga. 309, 219 S.E.2d 380 (1975); Young v. Sweetbriar, 222 Ga. 262, 149 S.E.2d 474 (1966); Tietjen v. Meldrim, 169 Ga. 678, 151 S.E. 349 (1929). The mere fact that the plat has only the engineer's name on it and not that of the owner or developer does not change this result.
2. The property owners argue, however, that the county has never accepted the dedication and has no right after seventy-five years to open the road. The county has never expressly accepted the road by formal action. Parsons v. Trustees of Atlanta University, 44 Ga. 529 (1871). Nor, under these facts, has there been implied acceptance of the road by improvement and maintenance. Ross v. Hall County Board of Commissioners, supra; Jackson v. Chatham County, 225 Ga. 641, 170 S.E.2d 418 (1969); Lowry v. Rosenfeld, 213 Ga. 60, 96 S.E.2d 581 (1957); Hyde v. Chappell, 194 Ga. 536, 22 S.E.2d 313 (1942).
In Ellis v. Mayor, etc., of Hazlehurst, 138 Ga. 181, 184, 75 S.E. 99 (1912), the difference is noted between acceptance of an expressly dedicated street and an impliedly dedicated street. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pulte Home Co. v. Juanita M. Aycock Living Trust
...containing that language was recorded. See Harbuck v. Houston County , 284 Ga. 4, 6 (3), 662 S.E.2d 107 (2008) ; Hobbs v. Ware County , 247 Ga. 385 (1), 276 S.E.2d 575 (1981). The requirement that the county accept the dedication of the roads in the recorded plat, including the entirety of ......
-
Avila v. Northrup King Co.
... ... Lehigh County Auth., 286 Pa.Super. 312, 428 A.2d 1343 (1981) ... 2 Footnote 5 states: "In cases specifically ... ...
-
Cobb County v. Crew
...streets to the public when she subdivides a tract of land and records a plat showing lots with designated streets. Hobbs v. Ware County, 247 Ga. 385(1), 276 S.E.2d 575 (1981); Young v. Sweetbriar, 222 Ga. 262, 265, 149 S.E.2d 474 (1966). Inasmuch as Collins subdivided the land and recorded ......
-
MDC BLACKSHEAR, LLC v. Littell, S00A1268.
...the common grantor's relevant land holdings. See Hale v. City of Statham, 269 Ga. 817, 819, 504 S.E.2d 691 (1998); Hobbs v. Ware County, 247 Ga. 385, 276 S.E.2d 575 (1981). Furthermore, as explained above, MDC's "Bell property" and Littell's property are located on the same side of Warehous......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...work the entire street within the confines of the grant, to make effectual the act of acceptance."' Id. (quoting Hobbs v. Ware County, 247 Ga. 385, 386, 276 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1981)). 269. Id. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial judge's denial of plaintiffs' petition for an injunction. ......