Poole v. City of Lake Forest

• Decision Date: 19 February 1909
• Citation: 87 N.E. 320,238 Ill. 305
• Parties: POOLE et al. v. CITY OF LAKE FOREST.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

238 Ill. 305

87 N.E. 320

POOLE et al.

v.CITY OF LAKE FOREST.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 19, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lake County; C. H. Donnelly, Judge.

Suit by Abram Poole and others against the City of Lake Forest. From a decree for complainants, defendant appeals. Affirmed.David Fales and Smoot & Eyer, for appellant.

Henry N. Tuttle and Hamlin & Boyden, for appellees.

VICKERS, J.

This is a bill filed by Abram Poole and others to quiet their title and to remove as a cloud therefrom the claim of the city of Lake Forest to a parcel of land located between the east line of lots 30 and 31 and the western shore of Lake Michigan. In 1857 the trustees of the Lake Forest Association, being possessed, as trustees, of sundry lands in townships 43 and 44 in Lake county, bordering on Lake Michigan, made a subdivision of said lands into a town fronting on Lake Michigan. They divided the lands into lots for private ownership, and into streets, lanes, alleys, and parks for public use. The plat made by said trustees is the original map of the city of Lake Forest. This plat shows a frontage of the city on Lake Michigan of more than 13,000 feet. The shore or beach of Lake Michigan opposite the city of Lake Forest consists of a sloping, sandy beach, extending from the water line back for a distance of from a few feet to about 150 feet to an abrupt bluff, which is from 50 to 75 feet higher than the high point of the sand beach below. By the plat made it is stated that all lots fronting on the lake should only extend to the top of the bluff. Lake avenue is laid out on top of the bluff and parallels the shore of Lake Michigan practically from the northern to the southern limits of the city. At some points Lake avenue is far enough from the crest of the bluff to allow a tier of lots, which are platted, fronting on Lake avenue on the west and extending to the bluff on the east. Such lots were platted north from Deerpath avenue and south from Rosemary avenue. Between these points no lots were platted between the lake and Lake avenue, and the open space left between the water line and the avenue is designated as Forest Park. There are, however, no words on the map indicating what the beach strip north of the north line of Forest Park and south of the south line of the said park was intended to be used for. Lots 30 and 31 are located between the bluff and Lake avenue, and are a considerable distance north from the north end of Forest Park. Lots 30 and 31 were purchased by Abram Poole in 1880. Upon these lots Poole constructed a residence, which has been used and occupied by him and his family, either as a summer residence or as a permanent residence, all of the time since the residence was completed. Abram Poole testifies that, when he first purchased this property, he supposed that lots 30 and 31 extended to the water's edge. Under the belief that he was the owner of the beach strip east of his lots, Poole exercised acts of ownership over the premises down to the lake shore. He shored up the northeast corner of lot 30, built a bathhouse down near the water's edge, and used the land as his own from the time he acquired the title to lots 30 and 31. The trustees of the Lake Forest Association conveyed the beach strip in question to the trustees of Lake Forest University. On October 29, 1894, it having been discovered that Poole had no deed to the shore strip east of his lots, the trustees of Lake Forest University executed a quitclaim deed conveying all right, title, and interest in and to the premises in controversy in this suit to Abram Poole. After obtaining this deed, Poole continued to exercise acts of ownership over the premises and expended considerable money thereon for timbers to keep the bank from raveling down, and on the northeast corner he placed heavy timbers to keep the waves from encroaching on the bluff, and did other work, such as setting out trees along the bluff, putting in tile drains down the bluff to prevent washing, and hauling a large quantity of dirt from other places and tamping it into the bluff. He made improvements more or less valuable every year during the 27 years that he has had possession of the premises in question.

It will be seen from the foregoing statement that the title to the premises in question is in the Pooles. The trustees of Lake Forest University were made parties to this suit, but they make no claim to the premises. They have been defaulted and the bill taken as confessed against them. The city of Lake Forest claims that the beach strip in question was dedicated to the public in 1857 by the trustees of the Lake Forest Association. The city also claims that, if there was no valid dedication of the premises to the public, the public has acquired an easement in the premises by continuous adverse use for more than 20 years. The court below found against the city of Lake Forest and entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill. This appeal is prosecuted to reverse that decree by the city of Lake Forest.

The contention of appellant that the beach strip opposite lots 30 and 31, and other lots similarly situated, was dedicated to the public by the trustees of the Lake Forest Association, is largely based upon the statement in the plat that the lake-front lots extended only to the top of the bluff, and that the space between the top of the bluff and the water line is left without any indication on the plat that it was intended for private ownership. The space upon the plat where the premises in question are located is neither platted as lots or as a street, alley, or public grounds. The fact that the plat recited that lake-front lots extend only to the bluff and that the space between the bluff and the water line is left unplatted is relied on by appellant as evidence of an intention on the part of the original owners to dedicate these premises to the public. The mere leaving of a blank upon the plat without any designation of its purpose cannot be held sufficient proof of an intention of the owner to dedicate the premises represented by such blank or undesignated space to public use.

In city of Chicago v. Drexel, 141 Ill. 89, 30 N. E. 774, certain premises were platted along the lake shore in the town of Lake View as an addition to said town. On the plat a strip was left between the platted blocks and the shore line of Lake Michigan. Nothing was placed upon the plat to indicate the intention to...