Hurley v. Miss. & Rum River Boom Co.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1885
• Citation: 34 Minn. 143,24 N.W. 917
• Parties: HURLEY v MISSISSIPPI & RUM RIVER BOOM CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

34 Minn. 143

24 N.W. 917

HURLEYvMISSISSIPPI & RUM RIVER BOOM CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed September 30, 1885.

Appeal from an order of the district court, Hennepin county.

Rea, Woolley & Kitchel and Worrall & Jordan, for respondent, Henry P. Hurley.

J. B. Gilfillan, for Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.

VANDERBURGH, J.

In the year 1850, a survey and plat of what is known as Bottineau's addition to St. Anthony was made, but the plat, not being properly acknowledged and certified, constituted no statutory dedication to the public of any streets or public grounds. A plat purporting to represent such survey was, however, filed in the office of the register of deeds of Ramsey county, in which the land was then situated, and there still remains among the files and records of that county a map or plat of that description. The land in controversy is indicated by a blank space on the plat, as shown by the annexed diagram, between block 26 (or Water street, if deemed extended in front of the block) and the river, and one material question of fact litigated is whether this open space on the river front was marked and designated “Public Wharf” on the original plat.

The plaintiff claims title under the original proprietor, Pierre Bottineau. The defendants lay no claim to the land themselves, but deny plaintiff's title and right of possession. The controversy embraces substantially two issues. -First, whether the locus in quo was dedicated to public use for a public street and wharf; and, second, whether the fee had, prior to the deed to plaintiff, passed to other parties by deed of the abutting lots. Of course, a common-law dedication is meant, to establish which the defendant relies upon evidence of acts in pais of the original proprietor, including the survey and representations upon the plat, public user, and conveyances made with reference to the plat. It is, however, found by the trial court upon this issue “that there has been no dedication to or acceptance by the public of this land as or for a public wharf or steam-boat landing, and that no part of said land has been used for such purpose for more than twenty years prior to the commencement of this action.”

This includes a finding that there were no acts in pais by Bottineau, either separately, or in connection with and explanatory of the survey, sufficient to constitute a dedication. It would have been more satisfactory if the court had specifically found whether the locus in quo was designated on the plat by the words “public wharf” written thereon,-a very material question in the case,-but we think it must be assumed to be involved in the general finding and determined in the negative. If more specific findings are deemed important or material, the defendant should have made an application to the court for such purposes. Smith v. Pendergast, 26 Minn. 318;S. C. 3 N. W. Rep. 978; Bradbury v. Bedbury, 31 Minn. 163;S. C. 16 N. W. Rep. 854.

The evidence that the original plat was so marked is circumstantial. The words in question do not appear on the plat now remaining of record in Ramsey county. No witness swears that they were originally placed thereon, or that he remembers seeing them there. But they appear upon copies, some of which were made for record in Hennepin county, though not certified, by the register of deeds of Ramsey county, but which the witnesses believe were accurate from the circumstances under which they were made and compared. On the other hand, they do not appear upon other maps which were also made from the records at an earlier day, and which the compilers intended should be accurate copies, and which were copied from the original records. Though the evidence in defendant's favor, taken in connection with the circumstances of the survey and situation of the premises and the navigation on the river as then contemplated, is strong and persuasive, yet we are not prepared to say that the finding of the court embracing this issue is without support.

Dedication of streets and public places, properly marked and designated upon the plat of a survey of urban property, is complete upon conveyances being made of lots included in such survey with reference to such plat, though not properly certified for...