Prince v. McCoy
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Henry District Oourt. AotioN in chancery. The plaintiff alleges in his petition that he brings the action for himself and many other citizens, having a common and general interest with him in the subject of the suit; that he is the owner of certain lots in an addition to the city of Mount Pleasant, which was laid off by defendant McCoy, and certain streets therein were dedicated to the public nse; that the city council, by resolution, authorized McCoy and other…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Henry District Oourt. AotioN in chancery. The plaintiff alleges in his petition that he brings the action for himself and many other citizens, having a common and general interest with him in the subject of the suit; that he is the owner of certain lots in an addition to the city of Mount Pleasant, which was laid off by defendant McCoy, and certain streets therein were dedicated to the public nse; that the city council, by resolution, authorized McCoy and other defendants to enclose and fence up the streets in .a part of said addition, so that they may enjoy the sole use of the…
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
I. The mere non-use of the streets by the public and the authority given by the city to inclose them, as alleged
1. áuSrFtTSi;o close. answer °f defendants, do not constitute a sufficient defense to plaintiff’s petition. The streets being dedicated to public use, the city cannot authorize them' to be inclosed; this can only be done lawfully after they are vacated in the manner prescribed by law. And the fact that, after the dedication is made in the manner prescribed by law, the people do not use the streets, does not, of itself, authorize the party making such dedication to resume possession…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Yates v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Clark v. WillettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- McCowan v. WhitesidesIndiana Supreme Court · 1869
- Corporation of New York v. MapesNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
- Head v. JamesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Campbell v. Jackman Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Ruge v. Apalachicola Oyster Canning & Fish Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1889
- Moffitt v. BrainardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
- Raynor v. Syracuse UniversityNew York Supreme Court · 1901
- Innis v. Cedar Rapids, Iowa Falls & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.