Opinion ID: 1530103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Dedicatory Intent

Text: Based on his exiguous treatment of the First Ebbs Plat, the trial justice found that the wharfs as laid out do not connect with recognized public highways on all sides but lead to dead ends. He concluded that this fact appears to deny the concept of public ways. This finding is incorrect. As depicted on the First and Second Ebbs Plats, Commercial Wharf and North Commercial Wharf both run from Thames Street to the harbor and, in the case of Scott's Wharf, to its terminus, at the connector. It was only in the Third Ebbs Plat, filed by agreement of the city and lot owners, that the western terminus of Commercial and North Commercial Wharf were changed. We deem this significant to the issues before us today. Notably, neither the First nor Second Ebbs Plats, nor the deeds-out from the trustees, grant or reserve any rights in the ways on the Wharf. The trial justice's construction of Greene v. O'Connor, 18 R.I. 56, 25 A. 692 (1892), also was erroneous. In his decision, the trial justice attempted to distinguish Greene, in which the disputed strip of land that terminated at private property was found to be a public highway. Id. at 61, 25 A. 692. The trial justice declared that Greene rested on a deed restriction that provided, `the said strip of land shall be forever kept open and used as a public highway and for no other purpose.' Id. at 57, 25 A. 692. This was error. Contrary to the trial justice's reading of that case, this Court specifically rejected the contention that the deed restriction was determinative of the issue presented. Id. at 61, 25 A. 692. The fact that the deed was recorded conclusively established the strip as a highway, and the failure of the City of Providence to keep the road `open and used as a public highway' did not allow the heirs of the grantor to take possession. Id. at 57, 61, 25 A. 692. The fact that the strip terminated at private property was of no moment to our decision: [T]here may be a highway where there is no thoroughfare, or passage through, or, in other words, that a road or street closed at one end and which only communicates with a highway at the other may, nevertheless, be a highway. Id. at 61, 25 A. 692. Accordingly, the trial justice misconstrued the holding in Greene and erred in applying it to the facts in this case, and his finding that the roads on the First Ebbs Plat did not connect with recognized public highways was clearly wrong. The roads depicted on the First and Second Ebbs Plats connect with Thames Street, and the fact that Commercial Wharf and South Commercial Wharf at that time ended at the western terminus of the Wharf  the harbor  is consistent with the purpose of a wharf, to provide access to the waterway. [7] Lastly, the Third Ebbs Plat did more than simply convey a portion of Commercial Wharf to the city. It was a re-subdivision of the plat, in which the roads on the lot were reconfigured. The city was deeded a portion of Commercial Wharf; and this roadway as depicted was altered markedly from the prior plats. Importantly, Commercial Wharf no longer ended at the harbor. The new terminus of Commercial Wharf was set back from the harbor and ended at the parcel leased to the steamboat company; it was set forth on the Third Ebbs Plat by broken lines with the designation,  Limit of Right of Way.  (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, because the Third Ebbs Plat altered the length of Commercial Wharf, the assent of the trustees and the owners was required. See Samuel Nardone & Co., 524 A.2d at 1116 ([An incipient] dedication can be revoked only by consent of all property owners in the plat    or by adverse possession.).