The Hayti herald. (Hayti, Mo.) 1908-1922, 1911-07-13

use was specified. The court properly
construed the, plat to dedicate the
! bar there is no such question. 1t Is
| clear that the use was specified and
! limited to courthouse purposes. 1t is
equally clear that under the statutes
| and decisions of this court, the county
court could not hold the land for "a diff
The real question in this case is,
| when, ii at all, does the land conveyed
/ to the county by the statutory dcdiCa-
tion revert to the doners. First. does
| IT revert under any circumstances
| Dillon on Municipal Corporation, vol.
| 2, section 653, lays down thisN rule;
| property unConditionally dedicated to
! public use or to particular use does
not revert to the original owner cN-
cept where the execution of the use
becomes impossible. If the dedicated
property be appropriated to AN un-
authorized use, equity VIII cause the
trust To he observed or the Instructions
removed This rule has been approved
py tins court,
in Good V. ST. Louis, ll3 Mo. 257,
! Sherwood, J,, cites and approves this
the case, when showed that the SpoCi-
fled use was feasible there was no i'm
possibility of its exercise, that in cas-"
/ of nuisance the city could be com
| PEELED to comply with the terms of the
dedication. and in such case there
. would be no rcverslon. Here We arc
dealing not with a question of misuse,
but with the question of the imposSi-
bilty of execution. or abandonment. of
the use. In Campbell v city of Kan
sas, 102 Mo. 1926, IA certain square in the
| pat had marked thereon "donatedd for
| graveyard" 1t was so used for years.
! subsequently, by ordinance, il was dis
continued a. "A graveyard, the remains
| of those buried there removed and the
place converted into "A park. The court
held that the use was not perpetuals and
that a. the original USE had terminated,
the fee vested in the heirs of the orig
inal donors, free from the use. Judge
Sherwood, commenting on this cas-" in
a. .l. ,tttI L. Ia
the action of the municipal authori-
ties the execution of the use had be-
come impossible" Yet it was still
phy ysirnIIy possible to restore this park
to its ginal specified use.
If, as this court has decided. the
compl"t" abandonment of use, such
abandonment being ordered by lawful
authority, is equivalent to lmpOSSibilitN
Of use, il must follow that when the
legal situation is such that the county
cannot begin the specified use. such
use becomes impossible of execution.
1t is quite true, a. contendcd for by
the learned counsel for respondents,
wort; = revcrsion. The cases cited to
support this contention, however, pres
ent facts which show that the sp"ci-
tied use is certain to com" in time, and
VIII be essential to the natural and
harmonious Development Of tn" city or
town. There is a DIFFERENCE between
delay and total failure. The case of
city of St Louis V. Mo. Fac. RY.. ia
Mo. II, cited by respondents. presents
| facts showing that the city owned the
&. property in controversy tor street
which, when improved, would effect a
continuation of the street on the river
front. 1t was properly held thrt mere
delay in the Improvement, certain to
come some time in the natural growth
of the city, did not affect the Citys
rights. and that ~" time when the
Improvement should be made was "A
mere matter of discretion with the city
ant h OritieS
The vital question. therefore is. has
lNl. a ~
for the purposes expressed by the don
ors in the d"dicatiOn@ The cases cited
above refer to situations where there
has been an Abandonment of the speCi-
fled use. such abandonment being held
TO be equivalent to an lmpossihil'ty
Here We have case where such use
has never been affected or attempted
We do not doubt that when this plat
was filed the fee in Block - passed tc
the county, in trust, to he used t"l
courthouse purposes. and so long as
t the property might be so used the fec
remained i'll the county as such trustee
1t is not, however, as respondents con
: tend, an absolute, unqualified ownership
in the county. 1t cannot be such II, a
stated above. the property may revert
by a complete abandonment or, imroS'
sibility of use. When this plat was
owners of the ground, and to the com
munity, every Indication that the coun,
ty seat would he there located, and O1
course. the dedication was made in con
Sideration of such expected location
but when the county scat was pcrma
nently located at CaruthcrSvillH. did II
not become impossible for the county
to execute the trust by using thi.
block for courthouse purposes W.
think IL did. 1t is to be presumed tina
the county scat will remain where !
J is. But even if this presumption shOul'
fail.there Is no ground suggested t.
I support any reasonable Expectation
that in case the county seat is changed
4 in the future ii will 20 to HaYti city
The possibility that the block may h'
, used at some time in the future 10
courthouse purposes is too remote t'
be regarded as "A substantial basis 70
. the trust to rest upon As practica
: proposition. the execution of this trus
: has become impossible, and. under thu
, authorities above cited, the land re
! yertS to the heirs of the original don
4 orS.
= We hold that the county court coul'
o not diveSt itself of the trust by deeC
back to the heirs. But the fact tina
| the authorities made the order. will
they regarded the county seat as per
manently located at Caruthersville
V and that the trust thereby became i'm
possible of execution.
: Under all the facts in this case a
shown by the record. we hold tho exc
CutiOn of the use impressed upon tn
land by III" dedication to he impOSSib
as that term should properly be con
Strued
q The finding of the trial court tina
the order of the county court, and tn
deed made pursuant thereto, wer" nul
90 and void. was correct: but If the iudg
ment of that court as "A whole Shoul
he affirmed, ii would leave the matter
as we stated at the beginning of thi
opinion. Still omen for litigation. Il
order to establish now. finally, TN
right of ownership in said Block >!
d the judgment is reversed and tn
T. cause remandod, with directions to tn
II circuit court to enter "A decree vcStin
o the It'll" to said Block % in the de
r PENDANTS.
FRANKLIN FEpHISS J.
e kENNISlI, L, j., and BROWN, j
J. concur.
u The nhnYe is the deciSinn of the Sll