Seltenreich v. Town of Fairbanks, 6926.
Citation | 103 F. Supp. 319 |
Decision Date | 04 March 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 6926.,6926. |
Parties | SELTENREICH et al. v. TOWN OF FAIRBANKS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert A. Parrish and George B. McNabb, Jr., of Fairbanks, Alaska, for plaintiffs.
Julien A. Hurley and Mike Stepovich, Jr., of Fairbanks, Alaska, for defendant.
Maurice T. Johnson, of Fairbanks, Alaska, for intervenor.
This cause came on for hearing on plaintiffs' motion filed herein on the 12th day of October, 1951, for a temporary injunction restraining the Town of Fairbanks, Alaska, from abandoning the business of conducting a municipal airport.
The plaintiffs allege that the land included within said municipal airport, which is generally known as "Weeks Field," had been dedicated to the use of the public as an airport and devoted to such use for many years, as shown by the exhibits.
The defendant and intervenor maintain that said airport has never been dedicated to a public use or devoted thereto; that the Federal Government has completed an international airport two miles from the Town of Fairbanks which is available to plaintiffs; that the town is losing money in operating said airport and can not afford to do so; that plaintiffs are indebted to defendant, for airport services, as follows, to wit:
Northern Consolidated Airlines $5,500 Fairbanks Air Service 565 Alaska Flying School 480 _______ Total $6,545
The motion was argued and submitted upon plaintiffs' amended complaint, defendant's answer, intervenor's answer, and the affidavits of L. F. Joy, James C. Ryan, and E. A. Tonseth.
Briefs were submitted by counsel for all parties.
Wherever "exhibits" are herein mentioned, the reference will be to the exhibits attached to plaintiffs' amended complaint, unless the contrary is specifically stated; "SLA" will be used to designate the Session Laws of Alaska; the Town of Fairbanks, Alaska, will be referred to as the "town" or the "city"; "A.J." will mean American Jurisprudence; and "McQuillin" will mean McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, 3rd Edition.
"The intent of the dedicator is the foundation and life of all dedications, and the intent must be clearly and unequivocally manifested." Page 669, § 33.36.
"It is variously stated that the evidence to establish a dedication must be clear and conclusive; must be clear and convincing; must be clear and unequivocal; must tend to substantiate a clear intention to dedicate, or must be strict, cogent and convincing." Page 674.
"The general rule is that proof of acceptance by the public must be unequivocal, clear and satisfactory, and inconsistent with any other construction." Pages 727 and 728, § 33.54.
The following quotations are from 16 A.J.:
"Dedication is the intentional appropriation of land by the owner to some public use." 16 A.J., page 348, § 2.
"In all cases, the burden of proof is on the party asserting a dedication." Page 417, § 75.
"* * * The essence of a dedication to public uses is that it shall be for the use of the public at large * * * and if from the nature of the user it must be confined to a few individuals, such as the use of land for piling wood, the idea of dedication is negatived * * * and a grant by the owner of a private right of way over his land to buyers of different parcels of the same to furnish them with convenient access to the street is no dedication to public use." Page 359, § 15.
Page 727, § 114; City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Company, 172 U.S. 1, 19 S.Ct. 77, 43 L.Ed. 341; Linne v. Bredes, 43 Wash. 540, 86 P. 858, 6 L.R.A.,N.S., 707.
In Seafeldt v. Port of Astoria, 141 Or. 418, 16 P.2d 943, it is stated as set forth in the syllabus:
In Arkansas Valley Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Morgan et al., 217 Ark. 161, 229 S.W.2d 133, at page 134 it is held as stated in the syllabus:
In City of Hazard v. Duff, 287 Ky. 427, 154 S.W.2d 28, at page 29(8), it is stated: "* * * but the courts in general, and those of this state in particular, are committed to the rule that a municipality engaged in maintaining and operating a waterworks does so in the exercise of a proprietary or private character as distinguished from a governmental character."
In Dix et al. v. Port of Port Orford et al., 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109, at page 110(2-4), it is stated:
"In operating a public utility in a private or proprietary capacity, the municipality possesses the same rights and powers with reference...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilderness Society v. Morton
...the purpose of constructing and maintaining a Motorway and Firebreak" as a revocable license); cf. Seltenreich v. Town of Fairbanks, D. Alaska, 103 F.Supp. 319, 325-336, 13 Alaska 582 (1952), affirmed, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 83, 14 Alaska 568, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 887, 75 S.Ct. 206, 99 L.Ed. 69......
-
Bowling v. Brown
...welfare, security, prosperity, and contentment of all the inhabitants or residents within the municipal corporation. Seltenreich v. Fairbanks, 103 F.Supp. 319 (D.Alaska), aff'd. 211 F.2d 83 (9th Cir.1954). It is important to keep in mind that the test of public use or purpose is not based u......
-
City of San Antonio v. Aguilar
...to the city manager. § 2; § 46(3); see Ostrom v. San Antonio, 94 Tex. 523, 62 S.W. 909, 910 (1901); see also Seltenreich v. Fairbanks, 103 F.Supp. 319 (D.Alaska 1952), aff'd, 211 F.2d 83 (9th Cir.1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 887, 75 S.Ct. 206, 99 L.Ed. 697 (1954); Visone v. Reilly, 80 N.J.......
-
Bush & Burchett, Inc. v. Reich
...act of the owner ..., manifesting an intention that it shall be ... used presently or in the future. " Seltenreich v. Town of Fairbanks, 103 F.Supp. 319, 323 (D.Alaska 1952), aff'd, 211 F.2d 83 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 887, 75 S.Ct. 206, 99 L.Ed. 697 (1954) (emphasis added). The k......