Skip to main content
· 1/22/1891

Earll v. City of Chicago

Citations

  • 136 Ill. 277
  • 26 N.E. 370

Syllabus

<p>■ 1. Town plat—acknowledgment-—by attorney in fact. Under the Revised Statutes of 1845, in force prior to the revision of 1874, a plat of land laid out into lots, streets, etc., was required to be acknowledged by the proprietor of the land, and could not be acknowledged by an attorney in fact.</p> <p>2. Dedication—by plat, prior to 1874—acknowledgment by attorney in fact—whether the fee passed. The acknowledgment of a town plat by an attorney in fact of the owner of the land, made between 1845 and 1874, will not, under the law then in force, operate to vest the legal title of the streets shown by such plat. Such plat and acknowledgment thereof will not operate as a statutory dedication of the streets.</p> <p>3. Same—sale of lots with reference to plat not properly acknowledged —estoppel—common law dedication. Although a town plat, or plat of an addition, has not been properly acknowledged, yet if the owner of the land so platted makes sales of lots with reference to such plat, abutting upon what is marked as a street, he, and those claiming through him, will be estopped from questioning the existence of the streets as shown on the plat. Such acts will create a common law dedication of the streets.</p> <p>4. Such sale of lots by the plat confers upon the purchasers the right to have the street therein described, and upon which their lots abut, remain open forever; and such right is not a mere right that the purchasers may use the street, but is a right vested in the purchaser that all persons may use it.</p> <p>5. The sale and conveyance of lots according to a plat of an addition to a town or city, though the plat be defectively acknowledged, imply a grant or covenant to the purchasers and their grantees that the public streets indicated upon the plat shall be forever open to the use of the public as a public highway, free from all claim or interference of the proprietor, or those claiming under him, inconsistent with such use, and that the owner, and all claiming

Judges: Bakes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.