Trustees of the First Evangelical Church v. Walsh

Citations

• 57 Ill. 363

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction in chancery—invasion of burial places. Where certain town authorities, without right, invaded grounds purchased and appropriated by a church organization for the purposes of a cemetery, with the view to open a highway through the same: Held, such act of invasion was not merely a trespass for which there was such adequate remedy at law as to exclude the jurisdiction of a court of chancery, but that court had jurisdiction by injunction to restrain the commission of the wrong, and to quiet the parties entitled in the possession and use of their cemetery.</p> <p>2. Dedication—effect of a plat. Where a tract of land of such character as not to be regarded as urban property, was laid out into lots of ten acres each, by the owner, who so platted the ground as to indicate that a certain strip was designed for use as a highway, but the plat was not in conformity with the statute, it was held, a dedication would not result from the mere making and recording of such a plat, but it would amount to nothing more than evidence tending to show a dedication, as at common law.</p> <p>3. Same—estoppel in pais And while the doctrine of estoppel in pais is not to be regarded as foreign to the principle upon which dedication rests, yet, where it did not appear that any of the lots had been sold with reference to the plat, which was of no statutory force of itself, or any improvements made with a view thereto, or any acceptance of the supposed highway bj7 the public, there could be no estoppel to preclude the owner from denying- there was a dedication.</p> <p>4. When a dedication is relied upon to establish the right, the acts of both the donor and the public authorities should be unequivocal and satisfactory, of the design to dedicate, on the one part, and to accept and appropriate to public use, on the other.</p>