Court Opinion

ID: 9695994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:33:15.352662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.844722
License: Public Domain

*375Newton, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result arrived at in the majority opinion but would clarify the nature of the interest acquired by the City of Dakota City.
It is the rule in this jurisdiction that “the title of a street vested in a municipality is not a fee simple title absolute but a qualified base or determinable fee and that the title which the municipality has is held in trust for the purposes for which the street is dedicated.” Hillerege v. City of Scottsbluff, 164 Neb. 560, 83 N. W. 2d 76. See, also, Dell v. City of Lincoln, 170 Neb. 176, 102 N. W. 2d 62; Seefus v. Briley, 185 Neb. 202, 174 N. W. 2d 339. Insofar as cities of the second class are concerned, the rule remains unchanged by legislation and conforms to the general rule. It is stated in 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Highways, Streets, and Bridges, § 158, p. 531, that: “As a rule, and whether a highway is established by dedication or prescription, or by the direct action of the public authorities, the public acquires merely an easement of passage, the fee title remaining in the landowner. The general rule is that the law will not by construction effect a grant of a greater interest or estate than is essential for the public use.”
In the present case we have a situation where the street has been acquired by prescription, not by dedication or formal opening under statutory proceedings. In other words, the public has acquired an easement. There has not been a conveyance of the fee. The fee has simply been subjected to the easement permitting the use of the land for purposes of travel by the public. “ ‘If an easement is acquired by prescription, the purpose for which the easement may be used is limited by the user under which the easement was acquired. The presumption of a grant is afforded only because possession amounting to a continuous claim of title has been acquiesced in for a period necessary to give a prescriptive right. Therefore, the presumed grant can *376never extend further than the user in which the other party has acquiesced.’ * * *
“ ‘The creation of a private way does not take away from the owner of the land over which it passes any portion of the fee of the soil. Regardless of how acquired, a private way carries with it by implication only such incidents as are necessary to its reasonable enjoyment.’ ” Drieth v. Dormer, 148 Neb. 422, 27 N. W. 2d 843. See, also, Elsasser v. Szymanski, 163 Neb. 65, 77 N. W. 2d 815.
White, C. J., and Boslaugh, J., join in this concurrence.