Ramstad v. Carr

• Decision Date: 29 June 1915
• Citation: 154 N.W. 195,31 N.D. 504
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

154 N.W. 195

31 N.D. 504

ERIK R. RAMSTAD, James Johnson, and Elinora Roach, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Roach, Deceased, v. A. CARR, Alex Scarlett, R. H. Bosard, John Ehr, and F. B. Lambert, as Park Commissioners of the Park District of the City of Minot

Supreme Court of North Dakota

June 29, 1915

From a judgment of the District Court of Ward County, Leighton, J Defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and Remanded with directions.

George A. McGee for appellants, F. B. Lambert, of counsel.

Where the owner plats land into lots, blocks, streets, and alleys and the plat thereof is duly executed, filed, and recorded and all done as by the laws of this state provided, and where a portion of such land is marked and designated on the plat as a park; and where such owner in thereafter selling the lots used such plat, made reference to the said park and to its location, and issued his deeds describing the lots sold as "according to the plat," and where the proper public officials have assumed dominion over such park,--the whole amounts to a conveyance, dedication, or grant to the public. Comp. Laws 1913, § 3946; Cole v. Minnesota Loan & T. Co. 17 N.D. 409, 117 N.W. 354, 17 Ann. Cas 304; Elliott, Roads & Streets, p. 92; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Crown Point, 150 Ind. 536, 50 N.E. 745.

In such a case the grantor is estopped, as well in reference to the public as to his grantees, to deny the existence of the park and the easement in the public. 12 Cyc. 454, note 75; Elliott, Roads & Street, 2d ed. § 118, and cases cited; Russell v. Lincoln, 200 Ill. 511, 65 N.E. 1088, and authorities therein cited; Clark v. Elizabeth, 40 N.J.L. 172.

This rule of dedication by estoppel applies equally to public squares and parks, as to streets, alleys, and to individual grantees by purchase. Poudler v. Minneapolis, 103 Minn. 479, 115 N.W. 274; Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige, 510, 27 Am. Dec. 80; Fessler v. Union, 67 N.J.Eq. 14, 56 A. 272; Atty. Gen. v. Abbott, 154 Mass. 323, 13 L.R.A. 251, 28 N.E. 346; Sanborn v. Amarillo, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 115, 93 S.W. 473; Archer v. Salinas City, 93 Cal. 43, 16 L.R.A. 145, 28 P. 839; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Worley, 49 Fla. 297, 38 So. 618; Carter v. Portland, 4 Ore. 340; Pella v. Scholte, 24 Iowa 283, 95 Am. Dec. 729; Russell v. Lincoln, 200 Ill. 511, 65 N.E. 1088; Abbott v. Cottage City, 143 Mass. 521, 58 Am. Rep. 143, 10 N.E. 325, and cases cited; Cole v. Minnesota Loan & T. Co. 17 N.D. 409, 117 N.W. 354, 17 Ann. Cas. 304; Lamoure v. Lasell, 26 N.D. 638, 145 N.W. 577; Atlas Lumber Co. v. Quirk, 28 S.D. 643, 135 N.W. 172.

The fact of dedication of a park, or public square, may be established in the same manner as in the case of highways and streets, and the statutory form of dedication has the same effect as a deed. 3 Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. §§ 1071, 1095, (644), pp. 1096, 1747, note 1; Bayonne v. Ford, 43 N.J.L. 292; Fisk v. Ley, 76 Conn. 295, 56 A. 559.

The word "park" written upon a block on a map of city property indicates a public use; and conveyances made by the owner of the platted land, by use of and reference to such map, operate conclusively as a dedication of the block. Price v. Plainfield, 40 N.J.L. 608; Maywood Co. v. Maywood, 118 Ill. 61, 6 N.E. 866; Ehmen v. Gothenburg, 50 Neb. 715, 70 N.W. 237; 3 Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. p. 1748, note 1; San Leandro v. Le Breton, 72 Cal. 170, 13 P. 405; Poudler v. Minneapolis, 103 Minn. 479, 115 N.W. 274; Evans v. Blankenship, 4 Ariz. 307, 39 P. 812.

The same doctrine applies to "a spring of water" set apart for "public use." M'Connell v. Lexington, 12 Wheat. 582, 6 L. ed. 735; Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. 431, 8 L. ed. 452; Bingham v. Walla Walla, 3 Wash. Terr. 68, 13 P. 408.

The term "park" as it is used in this country means a tract of land within a town or city devoted to public purposes of amusement, pleasure, exercise, and recreation, and generally means a place open to the public for such uses and purposes. Ehmen v. Gothenburg, 50 Neb. 715, 70 N.W. 237; Ruch v. Rock Island, 5 Biss. 95, Fed. Cas. No. 12,105; Avondale Land Co. v. Avondale, 111 Ala. 523, 21 So. 318; Roberts v. Mathews, 137 Ala. 523, 97 Am. St. Rep. 56, 34 So. 624; East Birmingham Realty Co. v. Birmingham Mach. & Foundry Co. 160 Ala. 461, 49 So. 448; Evans v. Blankenship, 4 Ariz. 307, 39 P. 812; Frauenthal v. Slaten, 91 Ark. 350, 121 S.W. 395; San Leandro v. Le Breton, 72 Cal. 170, 13 P. 405; Archer v. Salinas City, 93 Cal. 43, 16 L.R.A. 145, 28 P. 839; Pierce v. Roberts, 57 Conn. 31, 17 A. 275; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Worley, 49 Fla. 297, 38 So. 618; Smith v. Heath, 102 Ill. 130; Maywood Co. v. Maywood, 118 Ill. 61, 6 N.E. 866; Riverside v. MacLain, 210 Ill. 308, 66 L.R.A. 288, 102 Am. St. Rep. 164, 71 N.E. 408; Logansport v. Dunn, 8 Ind. 378; Rhodes v. Brightwood, 145 Ind. 21, 43 N.E. 942; Bennett v. Seibert, 10 Ind.App. 369, 35 N.E. 35, 37 N.E. 1071; Fisher v. Beard, 40 Iowa 625, Warren v. Lyon City, 22 Iowa 351; Pella v. Scholte, 24 Iowa 283, 95 Am. Dec. 729; Daughters v. Riley County, 81 Kan. 548, 27 L. R.A.(N.S.) 938, 106 P. 297; Rowan v. Portland, 8 B. Mon. 232; Elliott v. Louisville, 123 Ky. 278, 90 S.W. 990; Northport Wesleyan Grove Campmeeting Asso. v. Andrews, 104 Me. 342, 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 976, 71 A. 1027; Abbott v. Cottage City, 143 Mass. 521, 58 Am. Rep. 143, 10 N.E. 325; Atty. Gen. v. Abbott, 154 Mass. 323, 13 L.R.A. 251, 28 N.E. 346; Sinclair v. Comstock, Harr. ch. (Mich.) 404; Conkling v. Mackinaw City, 120 Mich. 67, 79 N.W. 6; Banker v. Johnston, 21 Mich. 319; Poudler v. Minneapolis, 103 Minn. 479, 115 N.W. 274; Rutherford v. Taylor, 38 Mo. 315; Price v. Thompson, 48 Mo. 363; Baker v. Vanderburg, 99 Mo. 378, 12 S.W. 462; Cummings v. St. Louis, 90 Mo. 259, 2 S.W. 130; Methodist Episcopal Church v. Hoboken, 33 N.J.L. 13, 97 Am. Dec. 696; Price v. Plainfield, 40 N.J.L. 608; Bayonne v. Ford, 43 N.J.L. 292; Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige, 510, 27 Am. Dec. 80; De Witt v. Ithaca, 15 Hun, 568; Buffalo v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 178 N.Y. 561, 70 N.E. 1097; Perrin v. New York C. R. Co. 36 N.Y. 120; Conrad v. West End Hotel & Land Co. 126 N.C. 776, 36 S.E. 282; Milliken v. Denny, 141 N.C. 224, 53 S.E. 867; Huber v. Gazley, 18 Ohio 18; Carter v. Portland. 4 Ore. 340; Church v. Portland, 18 Ore. 73, 6 L.R.A. 259, 22 P. 528 Morrow v. Highland Grove Traction Co. 219 Pa. 619, 123 Am. St. Rep. 577, 69 A. 41; Gillean v. Frost, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 371, 61 S.W. 345; Abbott v. Mills, 3 Vt. 521, 23 Am. Dec. 222; Leuders v. Tenino, 49 Wash. 521, 95 P. 1089; Shertzer v. Hillman Invest. Co. 52 Wash. 492, 100 P. 982.

Where lands are so platted for town or city purposes, and the plats so marked and lots are sold with reference to such plats, public policy requires that the legal consequences of sales made under such conditions shall be neither uncertain nor obscure, and such beneficial results can be secured only by maintaining the rule that such acts and conduct amount to a dedication of such parts of said lands as are marked for park or public square use, and such rule is not to be frittered away by frivolous circumstances, or other vague indications of an intention inconsistent with the presumption that follows from such specified acts of a dedicatory design. Bayonne v. Ford, 43 N.J.L. 292; Price v. Plainfield, 40 N.J.L. 608; Archer v. Salinas City, 93 Cal. 43, 16 L.R.A. 145, 28 P. 839; Abbott v. Mills, 3 Vt. 521, 23 Am. Dec. 222.

Such rule is illustrated and followed in many cases. Pierce v. Roberts, 57 Conn. 31, 17 A. 275; Rhodes v. Brightwood, 145 Ind. 21, 43 N.E. 942; Morrow v. Highland Grove Traction Co. 219 Pa. 619, 123 Am. St. Rep. 677, 69 A. 41.

Estoppel by abandonment cannot arise against a city or municipality, except by long-continued nonuse and by acts clearly indicating abandonment by the public, and by long adverse use of such property, with the apparent will and consent of the public. Davies v. Huebner, 45 Iowa 574; Biglow v. Ritter, 131 Iowa 213, 108 N.W. 218; Oliver v. Synhorst, 48 Ore. 292, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 243, 86 P. 376; Bangor Twp. v. Bay City Traction & Electric Co. 147 Mich. 165, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1187, 118 Am. St. Rep. 546, 110 N.W. 490, 11 Ann. Cas. 293; Poudler v. Minneapolis, 103 Minn. 479, 115 N.W. 274; Grogan v. Haywood, 6 Sawy. 498, 4 F. 161.

The city is not precluded from obtaining the land dedicated to the public for park purposes by the fact that, after dedication, it assessed the land for municipal taxes. Evans v. Blankenship, 4 Ariz. 307, 39 P. 812; San Leandro v. Le Breton, 72 Cal. 170, 13 P. 405; Ashland v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 105 Wis. 398, 80 N.W. 1101; Reuter v. Lawe, 94 Wis. 300, 34 L.R.A. 733, 59 Am. St. Rep. 891, 68 N.W. 955.

James Johnson and Palda, Aaker, & Greene, for respondents.

There is no stronger proof of a person's claim to real property than his voluntary payment of taxes imposed upon it. If plaintiffs had ever intended that this tract of land should be devoted solely to public uses, they would never have voluntarily paid taxes thereon. Case v. Favier, 12 Minn. 89, Gil. 48; Trerice v. Barteau, 54 Wis. 99, 11 N.W. 244; Canton Co. v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 69, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 133, 66 A. 679, 67 A. 274.

There has never been any common-law dedication of the land in question. Cole v. Minnesota Loan & T. Co. 17 N.D. 409, 117 N.W. 354, 17 Ann. Cas. 304.

Acceptance by the public is necessary to dedication, either statutory or at common law. Donovan v. Allert, 11 N.D. 289, 58 L.R.A. 775, 95 Am. St. Rep. 720, 91 N.W. 441; Northern P R. Co. v. Lake, 10 N.D. 541, 88 N.W. 461; Rev. Codes 1905, § 2422, Comp. Laws 1913, § 3297; Wayne County v. Miller, 31 Mich. 447; Field v. Manchester, 32 Mich. 279; Canton Co. v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 69, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 129, 66 A. 679, 67 A. 274; Hamilton v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 124...