Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-05-25
FEE In STREETS and ALLEYS.
Important Points of Law Decided In the
Case Of Staab Against the Oity,

Case Of staab Against the City.
u This morning Judge John r. McFi
handed down an opinion in the case O
Abraham Staab against John H. Blain
finding in favor of the plaintiff Staah
This cause involved the right Of tn
city of Santa Fe to deed the land for
merly occupied by it as a public stree
between San Francisco and Wate
streets, in exchange for other land t.
make an extension of Bridge street
thus doing away with the alley which
In former years connected the two
streets named between Lowitzki's fur.
niture store and what was then the ole
livery stable occupied by S. Lowitzki
1t will be remembered that the negotia.
tions for this exchange of land was car.
ried on for several months between J.
II. Blain and the city council before the
exchange was consummated. When the
deeds had been exchanged A. Staab
brought suit against ]. H. Blain to re-
cover possession Of the land which had
been decided to the latter by the city
claiming that the deed under which the
land covered by the old alley had been
conveyed to the city and county of
Santa Fe, executed by Julian Perea and
Nestora Perea, his wife, and Louis Gold
only transferred the use and not the
| title to the property.
In his opinion deciding the controver-
] sy, Judge McFie holds that A. Staab Is
entitled to the immediate possession
and use Of the land involved In the suit
| for the following reasons
l. That the conveyance by the Pc
reas and Gold Of the tract Of land de-
| scribed In their contract, dated August
49, 1871, constituted dedication of said
tract of land for public use by the coun-
ty and town of Santa Fe a as public
road, alley or street, at common law
and not by statute.
2. That dedication of land by the
owner thereof, for the purposes of
public road or street at common law.
constituted and conveyed only an ease
ment in the land for public use, and
that the fee in the land thus dedicated
remained in the owner, subject to the
easement so long as the same was used
for the purposes specified in the dedi-
cation thereof.
3. That the city council Of the city
Of Santa Fe had legal right to enact
the ordinance Of June "a, 1sS9 vacating
the old street covering the land in con-
troversy in this case, under paragraph
7 of section 24O2 of the Compiled Laws
of 1897.
4. That the vacation of said street by
said ordinance constituted an abandon
ment of the use Of the land as a street
of the city. and for the uses and pur-
poses for which the dedication OF said
land was made, and that thereafter the
right to the use and possession Of the
said land by the city ceased to exist,
and that the land and the right of pos
session to the same became the proper
ty of the owner of the fee in the land
abutting upon said street upon either
side, each being entitled to the lands
to the center of the street.
S. That the fee in the said land, not
having passed to the city by the said |
dedication, the city never became vest
ed with the fee to said land nor to the
right to the use thereof for any other |
purpose than that of a public road or
street, and therefore, after abandon
ment the city had no right to convey
said land to the defendant as attempt
ed, and that the defendant took moth
ing by said conveyance. That 1t Is i'm
what the consideration of the
deed was or whether or not it was ben
eflcial to the city in such case, as the
city had nothing to convey to the de-
6. Section 1894 of the Compiled Laws
Of 1897, which provides that the fee in
cities and towns, after maps and plats
have been made and recorded, vests in
the city or town, is not applicable to
this case, as the law was enacted in
1884, long after the dedication in this
case was made, and therefore 1t could
not operate to deprive the owner OF the
fee of his property without his consent,
nor was such the intention of the act.
1t was the intention Of the
act to apply the same to the towns and
cities laid out and plated under the
terms Of the act. Again. 1t is admitted
In this case that no plat of the city was
filed, as required by the act. 1t follows
that the Judgment of the court Will be |
for the plaintiff for the possession Of |
the property sued for and costs. No |
damages having been proven, none will |
be awarded.
BY the terms of the Judgment issued |
in the case, Mr.. Staab comes into pos
session of strip Of land feet and
inches wide and 1886 feet long. between
San Francisco and Water streets. Gen. |
u lott