City of Atlanta v. Texas Pac. Ry. Co.

13 Citing cases

  1. Jefferson Parish School Board v. Jeff, Inc.

    164 So. 2d 71 (La. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 1 times

    "In accord with the holding of the reported case, it is generally held that where a reservation of private land for a specified purpose is made on a map or plat a reservation to the private use of the owner is implied, rather than a dedication to the public. Grant v. Davenport, 18 Iowa 179; Baker v. Vanderburg, 99 Mo. 378, 12 S.W. 462; Eugene v. Lowell, 72 Or. 237, 143 P. 903; Atlantic [Atlanta] v. Texas etc. R. Co. 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923. It is a cardinal rule that animus dedicandi is essential to dedication and where there is a lack of clear and unequivocal intention it is held that there can be no grant by way of dedication to the public.

  2. First Federal S. L. Ass'n v. Aetna Ins. Co.

    431 F.2d 267 (8th Cir. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    There are also expressions in varying situations where a court has itself engaged in using the term "instrument" in such a contextual connotation. For example, in City of Atlanta v. Texas P. Ry. Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923, 926 (1909), it was held that a plat which had been filed by a railroad in indication of the relationship of its right-of-way to the use of a street was "a written instrument, and its construction is for the court, unless there is an ambiguity which renders it necessary to resort to circumstances attending its making in order to arrive at the real intent of the parties". To what we have precedingly said we shall only take occasion to add concludingly that without the existence of some absolute legal meaning of the term "instrument" — which Aetna has not been able to demonstrate and which we have been unable to find — the use of that general term in the coverage provision of the bond does not present any such question as to its application to the abstract of title here as to remove the situation from the settled principle of insurance-policy interpretation of not according words of coverage any unnecessary limitation in favor of the insurer, but of allowing them to have their full reasonable cont

  3. Anderson v. Tall Timbers Corp.

    378 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. 1964)   Cited 28 times
    In Anderson, residents of a subdivision sought to enjoin the opening as a public street of an area shown on the original subdivision plat as a 40-foot easement.

    ' In City of Atlanta v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923, wr. ref., the Court concluded against a dedication to public use upon the reasoning that '* * * If the open lines at Common Street indicated an intent to dedicate a continuous street, the closed space at what would otherwise be the junction points of the other streets evidently evinced the absence of any such intention (to dedicate to public use) on the part of the railway company as to the latter streets. It also appears from the map that the railway company intended to reserve this strip inclosed between the lines on the east and west sides of its track for railway purposes.

  4. Tall Timbers Corp. v. Anderson

    342 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. Civ. App. 1961)   Cited 5 times

    In Bowers v. Machir, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W. 758, the Court apparently ignored the closed lines of a 20 foot alley. The cases of Duggan v. Buckner, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 661, ref., w.o.m., and City of Atlanta v. Texas P. Ry. Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923, writ ref., relied upon by appellees, are quite distinguishable from the instant case as an examintion of the plats reproduced in those cases, without need for further discussion, will clearly show. It seems to us inconceivable that the owner of Tall Timbers Section and the two 6 acre reserved tracts adjoining would sell all its lots in the subdivision without providing a way of ingress and egress to and from the reserved tracts.

  5. Harlan v. Hawkins

    22 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Civ. App. 1929)   Cited 4 times

    "In order to establish a dedication, the testimony must be such as to show an unequivocal setting apart of the property to some form of public use. Ramthun v. Halfman, 58 Tex. 551; City of Atlanta v. Railway Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923; Clement v. City of Paris (Tex.Civ.App.) 154 S.W. 624; Worthington v. Wade, 82 Tex. 29, 17 S.W. 520." Sycamore Land Co. v. Rogers et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 254 S.W. 212 — quoted with approval in Kahn v. Bauch (Tex.Civ.App.) 275 S.W. 173, 174.

  6. Fort Worth & D. S. P. Ry. Co. v. Judd

    4 S.W.2d 1032 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928)   Cited 22 times

    In order to constitute a dedication of private property to a public use, it must clearly appear that the owner intended to absolutely and irrevocably set apart the land for public use. Summitt Place v. Terrell (Tex.Civ.App.) 207 S.W. 145, 148; City of Atlanta v. Ry. Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923. "Merely laying out grounds or simply platting or surveying them, without actually throwing streets open to use or actually selling lots with reference to the plat will not, as a general rule, constitute a dedication."

  7. Huffman v. Alexander

    276 S.W. 959 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)   Cited 3 times

    In order to constitute a dedication of private property for public use, it must clearly appear that the owner intended to absolutely and irrevocably set apart the land for public use, and same must either be accepted, or it must be so related to property surrounding it that its acceptance will be presumed, or that the delay in acceptance will be excused by reason of there being no necessity for its acceptance prior to the time the opening thereof is demanded. San Antonio v. Sullivan, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 619, 57 S.W. 42; Davis v. Young (Tex.Civ.App.) 148 S.W. 1116; French v. Scheuber, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 617, 26 S.W. 133; City of Kaufman v. French (Tex.Civ.App.) 171 S.W. 831; City of Pearsall v. Crawford (Tex.Civ.App.) 213 S.W. 327; 8 R.C.L. pp. 889 and 899; Sycamore Land Co. v. Rogers (Tex.Civ.App.) 254 S.W. 212; City of Atlanta v. T. P. Ry. Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923; Santa Fé Townsite Co. v. Parker (Tex.Civ.App.) 194 S.W. 487; Cockrell v. Dallas (Tex.Civ.App.) 111 S.W. 977; Ladies' Benevolent Society v. Magnolia Cemetery Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 268 S.W. 198. We have examined all the authorities cited by counsel, and have carefully studied the statement of facts, and we cannot, under the facts in this particular case, agree with the trial court that the 22 by 12 foot alley at the rear of appellee's property belongs to the public as a public alley, either by dedication or right of prescription.

  8. Kahn v. Bauch

    275 S.W. 173 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)   Cited 3 times

    "In order to establish a dedication, the testimony must be such as to show an unequivocal setting apart of the property to some form of public use. Ramthun v. Halfman, 58 Tex. 551; City of Atlanta v. Railway Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923; Clements v. City of Paris (Tex.Civ.App.) 154 S.W. 624; Worthington v. Wade, 82 Tex. 29, 17 S.W. 520."

  9. Ladies' Benev. Soc. v. Magnolia Cemetery

    268 S.W. 198 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)   Cited 13 times

    The intent of the owner to dedicate land for the purpose of a highway, road or street must be shown by his acts and declarations, and such acts and declarations must clearly and unmistakably show that he intended to dedicate the land absolutely and irrevocably to the use of the public, and that the public has acted upon the faith of such acts and declarations. Oswald v. Grenet, 22 Tex. 99; Ramthun v. Halfman, 58 Tex. 553; City of Atlanta v. Texas P. Ry. Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226,120 S.W. 923; Cockrell v. City of Dallas (Tex.Civ.App.) 111 S.W. 978; City of Pearsall v. Crawford (Tex.Civ.App.) 213 S.W. 328; Elliott on Roads and Streets (3d Ed.) § 138. There is no act or declaration of William McFaddin shown evidencing an intention to dedicate the land to public use, unless it be the clause in the deed to the Magnolia Cemetery Company, conveying to it a roadway on the north and east of the 13 acres he conveyed to it, which we will discuss later.

  10. Sycamore Land Co. v. Rogers

    254 S.W. 212 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923)   Cited 3 times

    In order to establish a dedication, the testimony must be such as to show an unequivocal setting apart of the property to some form of public use. Ramthun v. Halfman, 58 Tex. 551; City of Atlanta v. Railway Co., 56 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 120 S.W. 923; Clements v. City of Paris (Tex.Civ.App.) 154 S.W. 624; Worthington v. Wade, 82 Tex. 29, 17 S.W. 520. The only evidence of a dedication of this property as a park is found in the testimony of some purchasers, who stated that the agent from whom they bought told them that block 48 had been reserved as a park.