The herald., 1894-07-15
STREET DEDICATION.
JUDGE YORK DECIDES A DOUBLE.
HEADED CASE.
The Defendants Dead Losers by seour-
ing Judgment in Their Favor.
A Title with q String
to 1t.

Judge York yesterday gave a decision
in case which is of much interest to
people on Breed and Chicago streets in
this city, and which brought up some
interesting points relative to the dedi-
cation of land for street purposes.
1t was an action for partition of csr-
tain land, and WAS brought by f. NJ.
Benedict vs. A. G. White at al. The
defendants, John L. White and Mrs.
Lillian White, denied the plaintiffs
title to the land, they having acquired
title through plaintiffs father, H. B.
Benedict.
Judge York held that the first ques-
tion to be considered was the construc-
ton of the deed of conveyance of real
estate from II. B. Benedict to the de-
PENDANTS John L. White and Lillian
l.. White, made on August 18th, 1888.
After the description of the land in the
granting clause occurred the following:
''Saving and excepting therefrom as not
included in this sale and deed OF con-
veyance, 60-foot street about midway
between Soto and Chicago streets for
the extension southwardly of Breed
street, also land for 20-foot alley mid
way between Breed street and Chicago
street, also sufficient land off the west
end of this tract to give Chicago street
a width of 60 feet"
The plaintiff contended that by this
exception the fee to the land in question
remained in the grantor. and that it
passed to the heirs Of II. B. Benedict at
his decease.
The evident intention of the grantor,
the court says, was to make three reser-
vations for specific purposes. 1t is clear
that the first reservation was for the
purpose of the extension of Breed street,
the second for the construction OF an
alley and the third for the widening OF
Chicago street. Each of the reserva-
tions ia under and subject to the general
reservation clause. Each is reserved
specifically for q public use. 1t would
have been entirely superfuous to have
specified the use to which the excepted
portions were to be applied if the fee was
intended to be excepted from the grant.
If the grantor retained the fee in the
property in question he also retained
the fee to the strip Of land for the alley
and the land necessary for widening
Chicago street. If plaintiffs contention
is sustained. it follows that the grantor
could have ascertained the lands neces-
sary for the widening OF Chicago street
and could have entered into the exclus.
i've use of the same, preventing these
defendants from having egress from
their lands to Chicago street and ingress
to their lands from that atreet, which
was not the intention.
He held that the grant of the tract
through which the strip of land in aues.
ton runs conveyed to the defendants
fee simple title to the land in question,
subject to the right of the grantor to
dedicate the excepted portions for street
purposes.
The court concludes as follows "The
second question in importance is that of
dedication. The acts of the grantor in
designating the land in question as
street, in opening it to the public travel,
in inviting public travel upon it as
street and his acquiescence in its use "a
q public street to the time OF his death is
sufficient evidence OF his intention to
dedicate it to public use. The dedica.
ton has been accepted by public user
and by general ordinance OF the city OF
Los Angeles accepting all streets which
have been dedicated or offered to be
dedicated
The evidence shows that the defend
ants, John J.. and Lillian White, did
after said conveyance to them, obatruct
the said street and claim the land over
which it runs as their own and adversely
to the public. Such acts would not tend
to make public street private property
and invest the plaintiff in title which
he did not before possess. AS againat
the plaintiff such acts could not operate
es an sstoppel. because the plaintiff has
no rights in the premises.
Having arrived at these conclusions it
is unnecessary to consider the many
other points ably and deliberately argued
by counsel. 1t follows that judgment in
this case should be for the defendants,
John L. and Lillian L. White. and it is
SO ordered.
Wall paper hung, 10c roll; S32s s. Spring.