The Vill. of Princeville v. Auten
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Parties | THE VILLAGE OF PRINCEVILLEv.PETER AUTEN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. JOSEPH W. COCHRAN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. H. B. HOPKINS, and Mr. J. HOUGH, for the appellant.
Messrs. JOHNSON & HEWITT, for the appellees.
This bill was to enjoin the village board of trustees from moving the town hall from its present site and placing it on what is called the “square,” or ““square,” and gives the dimensions, in feet, of the “public square.” Phillips, the county surveyor, simply certifies the plat is correct. The proprietors make their certificate as to the correctness of the plat made by the county surveyor, and “that the streets and alleys are of the size set forth in the plat.” By reference to the plat, we observe that neither the size of the lots nor the width of the streets or alleys is indicated in any manner upon it. No allusion is made to any “square,” or “public square,” except in the certificate of the deputy surveyor, who, perhaps, performed the labor in making the original survey.
It is proven the proprietors of the town recognized the blank square as public grounds, and sold lots fronting on it for an enhanced price. Whether the proprietors, in making their certificate, shall be regarded as having adopted the certificate of the deputy surveyor, the legal effect of what they did was an incomplete statutory dedication of that block of land to the public. It would certainly constitute a dedication at common law. Had the plat been in conformity with the provisions of the statute then in force, it would have operated as effectually as a deed would have done to convey the title of the streets, alleys and public grounds in the corporation thereafter to be formed.
Neither the plat nor any of the certificates accompanying it expresses any limitation or condition as to the future use of the block designated as a public square, nor indicate in what manner the public may enjoy it. One of the proprietors, in his testimony taken at the hearing, says the land comprised in the block originally belonged to him; that it was the intention it should forever remain an open square, as a “beauty, convenience and charm to a country village,” and it was with that view lots fronting on it were sold for an enhanced price. Had this intention been expressed on the plat, or even in the contemporaneous certificates, it is clear, on principle and authority, the village trustees could not lawfully appropriate it to any other public use. It would have been an abuse of the trust reposed in them, that the courts would not hesitate to control, that the property might be preserved for the uses intended by the donors.
Assuming, as we do, that there was a dedication of this square to the public, an important inquiry arises: with what intention was the grant made? The purpose of the grantors was not manifested by the town plat, nor by any contemporaneous written instrument. Shall we presume, as a conclusion of law, it was for any particular purpose? Or shall we assume, in the absence of any explanatory word, it was the intention of the grantors that the corporate authorities, when they came into existence, should have the unrestricted control? Or shall we conclude it was for a site for buildings and offices for the transaction of municipal affairs? Or shall we hold the dedication of public grounds in the midst of a country village, no contrary intention being manifested, was for park purposes, or pleasure grounds, in which all the inhabitants of the village should have a common interest?
No usage prevails in this State, so far as we know,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- South Park Com'rs v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
-
Schien v. City of Virden
...or unrestricted, and what was the intention of the dedicator. When that intention is determined, it is controlling. Village of Princeville v. Auten, 77 Ill. 325. In the instant case the only evidence of the dedication or of the dedicator's intention was the plat filed by the proprietors of ......
-
Michigan Boulevard Bldg. Co. v. Chicago Park Dist., 32346
... ... [412 Ill. 360] Plaintiff also cites Village of Princeville v. Auten, 77 Ill. 325. There, a square tract of land was left in the middle of the village by the ... ...
-
Hill v. Kimball
...same was true in Smith v. Young, 160 Ill. 163, 43 N. E. 486, and in Feitler v. Dobbins, 263 Ill. 78, 104 N. E. 1088. In Village of Princeville v. Auten, 77 Ill. 325, there was no question of vacation, but a bill was filed to enjoin the village from putting up a building on land which had be......