Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Gordon

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. When Harry Dorsey Gough died in 1808 he was seized in fee, among other property, of a lot on the west side of Front street, in Baltimore City, having a front of 140 feet, and extending back westerly an approximate depth of 150 feet to Jones Falls. This lot lay just to the south of Billingsgate street, as it was then called, now known as Low street. Proceedings for a partition of Mr. Gough’s real estate were begun in the High Court of Chancery in 181J, and the return of the Commissioners was filed about eighteen months later.

By it there was allotted to James Carroll, Jr., a portion of the Front street property, fronting 46 feet 1 inch on Front street, “by a depth of 125 feet to an alley 25 feet wide left on Jones Falls for the mutual accommodation of this and adjoining lots.” By the same return there was allotted to Charles B.' Carroll a house and lot on Front street, immediately adjoining that allotted to James Carroll, Jr., and which had a front on Front street of 93 feet 11 inches, with a depth of 125 feet “to a 25 foot alley left on Jones Falls for the mutual accommodation of this and the adjoining lot.” These two lots taken together thus exhausted the entire amount of real estate of ¹⁵² Mr. Gough’s on Front street. The space referred to as an alley in the allotment remained an open space along the side of the Falls, which could be entered from Low street, but was closed at the other end by property adjoining’ to the south, which ran through from Front street to the Falls. [[Image here]] The present litigation grows out of an attempt by the Mayor and City Ctouneil of Baltimore, through the passage of an ordinance, to close this space as being a public alley, which is resisted by the abutting owners, who claim title in themselves by virtue of various mesne conveyances from James Carroll, Jr., and Charles R. Carroll. A bill was filed by the plaintiffs as owners asking, an injunction, which by the decree of the Circuit 'Court of Baltimore Oity was granted, enjoining the Mayor and Oity Council from proceeding under the ordinance. The question thus is one of dedicatión to the public, and the acceptance by the municipal ¹⁵³ authorities of such dedication of this strip of ground, referred to as an alley, as a public highway.

To sustain the City’s claim and contention it must be found that there was an intent to dedicate to public use on the part of the owner of the property, and that such intent was clearly manifested, and that the same was accepted by the City. “There is no such thing as a dedication between the owner and individuals, the public must be a party to every dedication. It is the essence of a dedication to public uses, that it shall be for the use of the public at large. There may be a dedication of land for special uses, but it shall be for the benefit of the public and not for any particular part of it. * * * The grant by the owner of a private right of way over his land to buyers of different parcels of the same to furnish them with convenient access to the street is no dedication to public use.” 8 R. C. L. 888, 9; Thomas v. Ford, 63 Md. 346 . The intent requisite to constitute a, dedication can not be inferred from a plat, by placing on it names which import a private use, as readily as a public use.

Pella v. Scholte, 24 Iowa, 283 . And what the character of the evidence of the intent must be, was clearly stated by Judge Miller, in Pitts v. Balti more, 73 Md. 326 , when he said: “It has been decided by this Court in a number of oases that in order to make out a dedication, an intent on the part of the owner to dedicate his land to the particular use alleged is absolutely essential, and unless such intention is clearly proved by the facts and circumstances of the particular case, no dedication exists.” And for this he cites the cases of White v. Flannigain, 1 Md. 539 ; Moale v. Baltimore, 5 Md. 314 ; McCormick v. Baltimore, 45 Md. 512 ; Tinges v. Baltimore, 51 Md. 600 ; Hall v. Baltimore, 56 Md. 187 ; Baltimore v. White, 62 Md. 362 and Glenn v. Baltimore, 67 Md. 390 . To support the contention of the City reliance is , placed upon two facts, which will be considered in the light of the rules of law applicable to- such eases. These are: ¹⁵⁴ 1st.

The description in the return of the Commissioners which called for a depth of one hundred and twenty-five feet to an alley twenty-five feet wide, and 2nd. “Poppleton’s Plat.” Taping these up in inverse order, the effect to be given to Poppleton’s Plat has been passed upon by this Court in Baltimore v. Bouldin, 23 Md. 328 , and Baltimore v. Hook, 62 Md. 371 , under which it was distinctly held, that the laying down