The herald., 1894-12-09
PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS.
what Constitutes Dedication of Streets
CLEARLY DEFINED.

PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS.
what Constitutes . Dedication Of Streets
Iearly Defined.
An opinion was handed down yester-
day by Judge Van Dyke that 10 import
ant to owners of city property. The
suit. upon which the opinion has been
rendered. is that Of w. H. Workman ".
The City Of Los Angeles. and the stand
taken in the controversy. examined at
length below, by Mr.. Workman. has
been fully sustained.
The opinion reads a. follows: This 10
an action to quit titleand for an in]unc-
tion to restrain waste by excavation and
carrying away the soil. The property in
controversy is designated on map called
the Moore & Kelleher map, AZ johnson
etreet, lying between Pennsylvania ave.
nue. and Also street, and also portion
OF what appears on said map 90 Work.
man street, lying between Also street
and Lopez street.
The defense is that these two streets
were dedicated to the public. and the
city relies to support this con tention
upon the fling OF this Moore & Kelleher
map for record May 10. 1875. At ths
time Of and before the fling OF this
map. Francisco Lopez was the owner OF
the property embraced in the map, and
the map was filed for record, as appears,
by John Lazzarevich. attorney in fact OF
the owner. The power Of attorney from
Lopez to Lazzarevicn, however. only au-
thorizsd him to sell and convey certain
parcels ofland embraced within his tract,
which land so authorized to be sold and
cd Anao tnCl,,Ao tha nv nj n
In controversy. On the Sd of January,
1875, Lopez conveyed about seventeen
acres of his said property to CASTOR Ox-
srart, without regard to the subdivisions
designated on said map but describing
1t by metss and bounds as an entirety.
And on Dec. G. 1893 0xs.srs conveyed
this same property to j. 4. Hollenbeck,
also by metes and bounds, and on Dec.
Is. 1858 Hollenbeck conveyed the same
property to plaintiff. which property SO
conveyed includes the property in con-
troversy. The defendant introduced an
ordinance passed by the city in 1890, ac-
cepting all streets heretofore dedicated,
but there was no evidence that these
so-called streets were ever opened or
travelled as streets by the public. 1t is
very clear that the power OF attorney
from the owner OF the property to Lac
zarevich to sell certain designated por-
tions of his tract, did not authorize him
to dedicate any portion OF it to the pub
lio. in other words, to give il away,
and had no authority to to make or file
the map in question for that purpose.
Besides, Is years before the ordinance
passed by the city accepting streets,
and before the so.called streets were
opened or used by the public. the owner
of the property sold the portion already
mentioned, in body, and thereby to
that extent Withdrew any offer to dedi.
cate, ii any such had been made.
The plating of property by she
owner thereof into lots. with streets de-
linated On the map and fling the same
only amounts to an offer to dedicate the
streets.
In order to constitute q dedication
which can be taken advantage Of BY the
public authorities OF the city. the offer
OF dedication must have been accepted
by such authorities, either by use or
by some formal act OF acceptance.
Hay We. Manner, 20 Cal. 476; Peo-
pie vs. Reid, 81 Gal. II; City OF Eureka
VS.. Croghan. 81 Csl. 524; Schmitt vs.
San Francisco. 100 Cal. 302. And at any
time before acceptance OF the property
oO Ou6IGu W Uo uouiUhboQs 0ltn0t w
formal act or by user, on the part Of the
public for q sufficient length OF time,
the offer may be revoked by the owner
and the subsequent conveyance OF the
land or any portion of it so offered, be-
fore any acceptance on the part of the
public, amounts to revocation. Peo-
pie w. Reid. City OF Eureka vs.. Crog-
han, Schmitt vs.. San Francisco; People
Va. Dreher, 101 Cal. 27l. AS shown,
there was no acceptance on the part of
the public by user and the formal ac-
ceptance was some Ia years after the
conveyance by Lopez to Oxarart OF
portion Of the premises covered by the
Moore q Kelleher map in o body by
metes and bounds.
Therefore, ii any offer to dedicate had
been legally made on the part of Lopez.
the owner Of the property, the subse-
quent sale to Oxarart, as stated, before
any acceptance on the part OF the public.
worked revocation to that extent. and
Hollenbeck and the plaintiff, his sue
cessor, took the property embraced in
the deed to Oxarart clear of any ease
ment on the part of the public.
1t results. therefore. that the premises
in question have not been dedicated to
the public uHe as streets, and the plain
tiff is entitled to a decree quieting his
title snd for injunction against disturb
ing the soil OF the came on tho part of
the city, and it is so ordered.
There ia nothing SO stylish in dress as
a fine, neat.ftting corset, and the ladies
OF Los Angeles will be pleased to learn
that Mrs. Oswald, formerly at 308 West
Sixth street, has removed to 603 South
Broadway and invites the ladies OF Los
Angeles and vicinity to call and inspect