Wade v. Town Of Cornelia
| Decision Date | 14 March 1911 |
| Parties | WADE. v. TOWN OF CORNELIA. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Where the owner of an acre of land located in a municipality subdivides the same into lots and streets, and dedicates the streets to public use, and the municipality accepts the dedication by working the streets and otherwise exercising control over them, the municipality acquires, for the benefit of the public, an easement in the use of the streets.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Dedication, Cent. Dig. §§ 68-71, 75, 76; Dec. Dig. § 35.*]
"Prescription does not run against a municipal corporation in regard to land held for the benefit of the public."
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Adverse Possession, Cent. Dig. §§ 24-42; Dec. Dig. § 7.*]
There was no abuse of discretion in refusing an interlocutory injunction.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 696.*]
Error from Superior Court, Habersham County; J. J. Kimsey, Judge.
Action by I. C. Wade against the Town of Cornelia. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Claude Bond, for plaintiff in error.
Jno. L. Perkins and Sam Kimzey, for defendant in error.
EVANS, P. J. I. C. Wade brought suit against the town of Cornelia, to enjoin the municipality and its officials from removing his barn, alleged to be an obstruction in the public street of the town, by virtue of a proceeding instituted under section 10 of the municipal charter. Acts 1905, p. 768. The court refused an interlocutory injunction, and the plaintiff excepts.
It was the contention of the plaintiff that his barn was located on the lot of land purchased by him on October 1, 1902, from Mrs. M. H. Stone, under bond for title; that afterwards, on March 3, 1906, Mrs. Stone executed to him a deed to the land, and he has been in the actual and adverse possession of the land since the date of his purchase; and that the land upon which he is alleged to have encroached has never been used by the town or public as a street or highway. In support of his contention the plaintiff introduced his bond for title and deed, and his own affidavit. On the other hand, the town submitted evidence tending to show that a certain portion of the town was laid out by the then owners of the land into lots and streets, one of which streets was known as Gladis avenue; that this street was dedicated to the use of the town, and was accepted and worked by the town authorities, and was traveled and used by the public as a street; that the plaintiff's grantor purchased the lot which she afterwards sold to the plaintiff, which abutted on Gladis avenue; that at the time she sold the land to the plaintiff the street was actually in existence, used by the public as a street; and that the plaintiff had notice, when he built his barn and fence, that he was encroaching upon the public street.
The evidence was sufficient to authorize an inference that the street had been actually dedicated to public use and accepted by the town, and that the town had recognized it as a street by causing the same to be worked, and that the plaintiff had knowledge of this fact at the time he constructed his barn,...
To continue reading
Request your trial