Court Opinion

ID: 9829446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:18:35.752739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:01.186198
License: Public Domain

*279ON MOTION FOE REHEARING.
To sustain the contention of appellees it would be necessary to hold that when land, is deeded to a city for street purposes, working a large portion of the dedicated land is no evidence of an acceptance under the deed, and that as to the portion not.worked, a forfeiture will arise in favor of the grantor. We do not think that such contention has met with recognition in any text book or adjudicated case. On the other hand Elliott, in his work on Roads and Streets, cites the case of Town Council v. Lithgoe, 7 Richardson Law, 435, as holding “that digging a public well in the way was evidence of acceptance,” and he adds: “We have no doubt of the soundness of this decision, for no matter what the particular act is, if it be one which could only be rightfully done upon a highway, it should be regarded as evidence of acceptance.” Elliott on Roads and Streets, p. 116, and cases cited in footnote.
If digging a well.in the dedicated land is an acceptance of the land for street purposes, much more so would it be acceptance when two-thirds or perhaps more of the land is at once opened up as a street. This act evidenced an acceptance of the whole street as conveyed in the deed, and if there had been no other circumstance, it was sufficient to establish acceptance upon the part of the city. There was, however, in addition, a map executed by the city in which all the land was laid out as Austin street, as well as an ordinance ordering the opening of thestreet when the deed was delivered. An acceptance could not be more fully proved than it was in this case. The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.