City of Los Angeles v. Kysor

Citations

• 125 Cal. 463
• 58 P. 90
• 1899 Cal. LEXIS 883

Syllabus

<p>Public Park—Dedication—Intention—Question of Fact—Conflicting Evidence.—The dedication in pais of a public park, or of land to any public use, can never be a matter of law. The owner’s intention is the all important element in creating a dedication, and is a question of fact; and a finding of “no dedication” cannot be disturbed where the evidence is conflicting, though the preponderance of the evidence may be in favor of the dedication.</p> <p>Id.—Recorded Map Showing Pabk—Sales of Lots—Offeb of Dedication—Public Acceptance—Revocation.—The record of a map, with the designation of streets and parks thereon, and the sale of lots by such map, whatever effect it may have upon the individual rights of the lot-owners, cannot conclusively establish the dedication of a park designated thereon to public use; but, treating it as an offer of dedication thereof, a finding of “no dedication” will be sustained, where no public acceptance of the offer is established, and the evidence tends to show a revocation of the offer.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence of Revocation—Contbact of Sale.—A contract for the sale of a park tract designated as such upon the recorded map is evidence tending to show a revocation of the offer to dedicate the park to public use.</p> <p>Id.—Acceptance by Public—Pabtial Dse fob Pleasure Purposes—Pbivate Ownership.—Where there was no evidence of any act of acceptance of the park by the city, the mere occasional use of a portion of the grounds for picnics and other pleasure purposes, being consistent with private ownership, ■ which was in fact exercised over the tract, cannot establish an acceptance of the park as such by the public, against a finding of “no dedication.”</p> <p>Id.—Implied Acceptance—Finding against Acceptance.—An ac- ■ ceptance of an offer to dedicate may be presumed or implied in many cases; yet a finding of fact that there never was an acceptance will rarely be set aside by an appellate court, where the claim of acceptance is based upon presumption