Case Name: MORRIS v. BOWERS
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-11
Citations: 1 Wright 749
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORRIS v. BOWERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 776–779

Head Matter:
MORRIS v. BOWERS.
Town plats — acknowledgment of — dedication—fee in public ground — streets' of a town — supervisors.
A town plat recorded, though not acknowledged, is good as a plat, and is evidence of a dedication of the streets and other public grounds to the public..
But tire plat must be acknowledged and recorded, in order to pass the fee of such ground to the county, for the use intended.
The streets and alleys of a town, are public highways.
.It is the duty of a supervisor to remove obstructions in the highways, and if sued for it, he may show his character and the existence of the street in mitigation of damages.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas. Bowers laid out the "town of Montgomery. Morris, a supervisor of highways, pulled «down Morris’s fences across the streets and alleys of the town, and •opened them for public use. Bowers brought suit against him for the trespass in breaking his close — not guilty was pleaded with notice of the special matter to be given in evidence. On trial, 'Bowers proved his occupancy of the land, and that Morris entered .and pulled down his fences. The defendant then offered to proVe ■the laying out of the town by the plaintiff, and that he sold the lots; that the defendant was a supervisor of highways, the town was in his district, and that he only removed the fences from the /streets and alleys of the town, so as to open them for use, which was objected to and ruled out by the court. Morris then offered a •copy of the plat of the town duly recorded, but not acknowledged, with a deed to himself of one of the lots, and also a copy of a second and later plat, duly acknowledged and recorded, varying the plat, which was also objected to, and ruled out by the court. It is assigned for error, that the court below erred in ruling out this ■evidence.
Galdivell and Inin, for the plaintiff in error,
insisted the evidence /should have been admitted. Bowers would be taking advantage of Ms own wrong, if admitted to defeat the public right by objecting *his own neglect to. acknowledge the plat of the town. The [750 plat was good without acknowledgment to vest the use of the /streets in the town, though an acknowledgment was necessary to pass the fee to the county. The streets and alleys are public highways, and it is the duty of the supervisor to open them: (3 O. 93; 22 O. L. 315.)
Olds, contra, insisted the first plat not admissible,
because not acknowledged, and the second plat, because it was made after the trespass. The deed and the proof about the roads were properly Rejected, because not in issue.

Opinion:
COLLETT, C. J.
The act to provide for recording town plats (22 O. L. 301), in the first section requires of proprietors of towns, .before they sell, to have a plat thereof accurately made out for record,,and the second section .declares ¡th¡e map "¡shall ¡particularly set forth and describe all the .public ground within such town, by its-boundaries, courses, and extent, and the lots ¡intended -for sale by progressive numbers, and their precise length and width." 'The law subjects the proprietor to a penalty, if he sell before the plat is-recorded, or record a plat which (does not so describe ¡the public ground, ifcc., -and declares that when the plat is ¡so .made, acknowledged, and -recorded, -it shall be deemed a conveyance vesting fhefee in such public ground in the county within which the town is situated, in trust for the uses and ¡purposes .expressed, -or intended to he.
The -law does ¡not declare a -plat of a town not acknowledged, .a-nullity. It would be manifestly unjust -to do so. Th-e.plat is ¡made, recorded, and lots sold, bounded -o.ia streets, &c.; ¡the grantor should not make his own act void, as a consequence of his .own laches. The law does not so intend. If acknowledged -and recorded, the-fee of the public ground is vested in the county in trust, ¡to prevent-disputes as to who holds it. He pays a penalty if he .sell without doing this act for the public-security, »orif foe records an improper plat. If .the plat be recorded without acknowledgment, if is -good evidence of the town .plat, tho-u-gh it .does not vest the fee in tfoe¡county. In such case, the description .of the -streets, &c., and the-sales to them, -would operate by way ,of dedication to vest the public with the use of the streets. In that view this plat w,as ¡a valid-one, though not acknowledged, and the public right to use the-streets was complete by virtue of the dedication, as if acknowledged, and the designation of it had conveyed the fee to thecoupty.
The statute expressly declares streets, &c., of towns public highways, and enjoins it as a d.uty on supervisors to remove obstructions.
The evidence, in our opinion, was competent to prove the facts .assumed, and should have been admitted, if, under the issue, itwas751] *admissible. It is urged that these matters were of justification, and should have been pleaded. It is not necessary now to-decide .that question; it is sufficient for the present case, that we consider such matter evidence under the general issue in mitigation of damages, and it does pot lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to object, that matter in bar of his rightis only used to lessen ¡theamount. he recovers.
The judgment is reversed; and remanded hack.
[Plat .defeating .street must he acknowledged and -recorded;.
Fulton v. Mehrenfeldt, 1 Disney, 151, 153; Doren v. Horton, 1 Disney, 401, 404, 405.]