McKey v. Hyde Park Village

Citations

• 134 U.S. 84
• 10 S. Ct. 512
• 33 L. Ed. 860
• 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1950

Syllabus

<p>The only contention between the parties in this action of ejectment was, whether the centre of a street in the village of Hyde Park was the south-■1 er.n-boundary line of the plaintiff’s land, or whether that line ran twenty- ' 'three;feet further south. The court' in its charge to the jury said: “In 1873 the village of Hyde Park- laid out and opened 41st Street sixty-six. feet wide from Grand Boulevard to Vincennes Avenue, the centre of which was a line equidistant from the north and south lines of the quarter section, on the theory that this line was the true east and west boundary between the four quarters of th'e quarter section and the true southern boundary of the McKey tract; ” and then directed the jury thus: “ If you believe from the evidence that the centre of the street is the centre east and west line of the quarter section, then you are also instructed that it was and still is the true'boundary line, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the land described in the declaration on the theory that the Greeley survey was correct; ” Held, that this was erroneous as it in effect directed the jury to find that the plaintiff was not entitled to regover; and, as the evidence was conflicting, that was a question to be determined by the jur^,.</p> <p>A rule in force for the subdivision of public lands for disposal under the public land law does not necessarily apply to the subdivision of private lands by their owners after they have been granted by the. government without having first made official subdivisions.</p> <p>In Illinois the inference that an owner of land has dedicated it to the public for use as a street can only be drawn from acts which show an actual intention to so dedicate it, or from acts which equitably estop the owner from denying such intention.</p>