Township v. Herman

• Decision Date: 07 February 1903
• Docket Number: 12,914
• Citation: 71 P. 517,66 Kan. 256
• Parties: GARFIELD TOWNSHIP v. D. W. HERMAN et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

71 P. 517

66 Kan. 256

GARFIELD TOWNSHIP v. D. W. HERMAN et al

No. 12,914

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 7, 1903

Decided January, 1903.

Error from Finney district court; WILLIAM EASTON HUTCHISON, judge.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. TITLE AND OWNERSHIP -- Statutory Dedication. To constitute a valid statutory dedication which will vest the title of land intended for public uses in a county, the plat must be made, acknowledged and certified conformably to the requirements of the statute.

2. TITLE AND OWNERSHIP -- Deed Construed -- Court-house Grounds. In a deed conveying ground to a county there was a recital that it was to be used for court-house purposes, but it contained no provisions for forfeiture, or that the property should revert to the grantor under any circumstances. Held, that an absolute estate in fee simple was conveyed.

3. TITLE AND OWNERSHIP -- Property of Garfield Township. When Garfield county was dissolved, the township of Garfield, which was made up of the territory formerly included in the county, succeeded to the property of the county as well as to its liabilities.

Garver & Larimer, for plaintiff in error.

Sutton & Scates, for defendants in error.

JOHNSTON C. J. MASON, J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

This was an action of ejectment brought by Garfield township against D. W. Herman, involving the title to a block of ground in the town of Ravanna. Semar Mason owned a tract of land in Hodgeman county, including that in controversy, which he undertook to subdivide and plat as a town site in 1885, but it does not appear that the plat was acknowledged and certified as the statute requires. In 1887 the legislature attempted to create the county of Garfield and included the land in question within its boundaries. In 1888 Mason conveyed the ground in question to Garfield county for court-house purposes for a consideration of $ 2400. Bonds to the amount of $ 10,000 were voted and issued by Garfield county for the building of a court-house, and from the proceeds of the bonds a court-house was built upon the block purchased from Mason. Before it was fully completed the county-seat was removed from Ravanna, and since then the building has not been used as a court-house. In a judicial proceeding the county was dissolved, and afterward the territory constituted Garfield township of Finney county. The township has been held to be the legal successor of Garfield county and liable for the court-house bonds issued to build the court-house upon the land in question. (Riley v. Garfield Township, 54 Kan. 463, 38 P. 560.) In 1892 Mason made a quitclaim deed to Herman for the block on which the court-house was built, and in his answer in this proceeding Herman claims title to the block by virtue of that deed.

The title to the land is in the township. The attempted dedication by Mason, in 1885, was ineffectual to vest title in the public. The plat which he made, and afterward ignored, does not appear to have been acknowledged and certified, and these things are essential to a statutory dedication. (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 4364; Brooks v. City of Topeka, 34 Kan. 277...