Pierce v. Chamberlain
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Black, Judge. (1) No statutory dedication is claimed, nor was there a common law dedication. As to what constitutes a common law ’dedication, see Brinde v. Collier, 56 Mo. 160; 2 Greenleaf on Ev., (13 Ed.) p. 591, § 662. (2) There was no acceptance; but the intention, more or less clearly expressed in deed to Holmes, was revoked.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Black, Judge. (1) No statutory dedication is claimed, nor was there a common law dedication. As to what constitutes a common law ’dedication, see Brinde v. Collier, 56 Mo. 160; 2 Greenleaf on Ev., (13 Ed.) p. 591, § 662. (2) There was no acceptance; but the intention, more or less clearly expressed in deed to Holmes, was revoked. As to right to revoke, see 8 Minn. 494; 31 Cal. 589; 1 R. I. 519. (3) The evidence of revocation consists of the deed without reservation from Holmes to defendants, (as in Minnesota case cited,) also the unconditional…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
This suit was brought to restrain defendants perpetually from obstructing a street. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff according to the prayer of the petition, from which defendants have appealed to this court, and the questions presented by the appeal are, whether the strip of ground claimed as a street had been, dedicated by the owner, and if dedicated, whether the dedication had been accepted, and whether such dedication had been revoked before acceptance.
It appears from the evidence that in February, 1875, Mary S. Peery, Mary J. Bouton and Sarah A. Peery, who were the owners in fee of a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- James v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Kirchen v. RemengaMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Heitz v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892