Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-04-28

representation on the part OF BlgeloW
that street had been dedicated, ad-
jacent thereto, as constituting an in
dispensable inducement to the pur-
chaser. 1t further appears that
during all these years the ground
now claimed to be street has re-
mained uninclosed and unoccupied.
By the Macarthur and Bird map block
"B" lies Immediately south of block
s, Bigelow's Addition, with Fifth
street running east and west between
them, and Immediately west of block
"B" is block "C', with space between
them for street which would be ap-
proxmiately a continuation south Of
Laughlin street Whether these two
blocks were part Of the original
Bigelows Addition does not appear,
but they are within the Bigelow do
nation land claim. By the Laughlin
map, Laughlin street extends south
to the line between the two donation
claims and within few feet of lot
7 and these circumstances indicate
that Bigelow intended to and did ex-
tend Laughlin street south through
his addition.
Every principle of equity and JUS
tice requires a recognition of the ex-
tension of Lauglin street, adjacent to
lot 7, and we are justified in the con-
clusion that Bigelow so intended. The
dedication of street by parol is we'll
recognized in this state. 1t is an
nounced in Carter V. Portland, Or.
339, by Mr.. Justice Macarthur, where
he says that if one owning land. or
having an equitable interest therein,
and subsequently acquires the title
thereto lays out thereon town, and
makes and exhibits plan thereof
with spare ground marked streets,
allies, public squares or parks, and
sells lots with clear reference to that
plan or map, the purchasers of the
lots acquire as appurtenant thereto
every easement, privilege and ad-
vantage which the plan or map rep
rsents as part Of the town. =
1t is not necessary to show that the
map upon which such streets, allies,
public parks, ETC., we're displayed,
were recorded, but simply that 1t was
used and referred to by the proprie-
tor in selling the lots"
The same principle is announced
and followed in Oregon City v. Ore
gon & Cal, r. Co., A Or. 165, IT'S, in
which Mr. Justice Bean says: ut is
we'll settled that, where the owner Of
land exhibits map or plat Of a
town thereon, showing lots, blocks,
streets, and other public ways, and
sells and makes deeds of conveyances
by reference thereto, he thereby ded-
icates to the public the streets and
public places shown thereon" The
final decision in that case upholds
the dedication uninfluenced by the
fact that the map was recorded as it
was not the map Of the owners, the
Harveys They made no express ded-
ication; they only conveyed with ref
erence to a map made by another,
and the recording or execution there
of did not bind them; they adopted
the map by using it. The dedication
was not by reason of the record but
by reason of the conveyance made
by reference to the map. Whether
or not there was a line on the Bige-
low map indicating the east line of
Laughlin street adjacent to lot Z, we
deem immaterial as was held in the
case of Warden " Blakly, 80 Wis.
900, which is directly in point. In
that case plaintiffs claimed title
from the heirs of the original pro-
prletor of the addition to a strip OF
ground adjacent to and along the
south side of block 20 of that addi-
tion, while defendant, the owner of
lots and in block 20, claimed It
was Alice street, and 1t was objected
by plaintiffs that If such had been the
intention of the proprietor he would
have designated Alice street by line
south of block 90. Counsel for de-
fendant, in the above case, in his
brief argues that because the south
ern half of lot 20 is subdivided into
lots running north and south, and
which are inaccessible unless there
is such a street. No sane man would
thus subdivide the lot and leave no
street south of them; and the plat
must have a reasonable constitution +"
The court says; "The argument of
the counsel for the respondent in
support of this construction of the
Mat Is unansvarahle the