Case ID: f_222/html/0260-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WOODCOCK v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 26, 1915.)
    No. 2742.
    Dedication <®=»19 — Sales with Reference to Map or Plat.
    Where the owners of land made a plan of the property on which a vacant space was designated as “Samuel Place,” and subsequently the owner of that part of the property including Samuel Place sold lots in accordance with the plan, the “place” was thereby dedicated to the public.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Dedication, Cent. Dig. §§ 35, 37-47; Dec. Dig. ®=>19.]
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Rufus E. Foster, Judge.
    Action between Ernest E. Woodcock and the City of New Orleans. From a decree for the C'ity,'Woodcock appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Lyle Saxon and Walter S. Lewis, both of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
    1. D. Moore, City Atty., and John F. C. Waldo, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
    .Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

The owners of the lower half of Cottage Plantation, Laurent Millaudon and Samuel Kohn, in 1849 authorized Augustus S. Phelps to make a plan of the property for the purpose of selling their interest in the same at auction. The plan proposed by Phelps was approved and signed by Millaudon and Kohn. A vacant space was delineated on the plan under the designation of Samuel Place, the property in controversy. Samuel Kohn, the owner of that part of the estate which included Samuel Place, sold various lots in accordance with the Phelps plan.

We think there is no doubt that the acts of the parties operated as a dedication of Samuel Place to the public. If acceptance of the dedication was necessary, a question which it is not essentiaPto decide, the enactments of the Legislature, together with ordinances of the city, and other acts of proprietorship exercised by the city as shown by the record, sufficiently evidence such acceptance in behalf of the public. In a carefully prepared and clearly expressed report the master so held. His report was confirmed, and rightly confirmed, by the court.

The decree of the District Court should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.