(Ch. 13 or the municipality.85 It has already been said that highways are not easements proper, because they are held in gross, and not appendant to any dominant estate.86 When a highway is only an inent, the owners on each side of the road hold the fee to the middle, subject to the right of the public to pass over it.87 The adjoining owners, therefore, are entitled to the trees, minerals, etc.88 Highways are usually acquired by dedication, either express89 or implied by user by the public.90 Highways may also be acquired by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, in which case compensation must be made for the land taken.91 No deed or other formal act is necessary for the dedication of a highway to the public. The dedication is complete when made and accepted by the public,92 and use as a highway may be sufficient to constitute an acceptance.93 Un-til there is an acceptance by the public, it does not become bound to keep the road in repair, or liable for injuries caused by its being out of repair.94 Dedication of a highway may be for special pur85 Washb. Easm. & Serv. (4th Ed.) 252.

86 See Deerfield v. Railroad Co., 144 Mass. 325, 11 N. E. 105; Com. v. Low, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 408; Nudd v. Hobbs, 17 N. H. 524.

87 Adams v. Rivers, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 390.

88 Makepeace v. Worden, 1 N. H. 16; Tucker v. Eldred, 6 R. I. 404; Daily v. State, 51 Ohio, 348, 37 N. E. 710. And see Lade v. Shepherd, 2 Strange, 1004; Reg. v. Pratt, 4 El. & Bl. 860; Perley v. Chandler, 6 Mass. 454; Codman v. Evans, 5 Allen (Mass.) 308; State v. Davis, 80 N. C. 351.

89 Com. v. Inhabitants of Newbury, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 51; Warren v. President, etc., of Town of Jacksonville, 15 111. 236.

90 James v. Sammis, 132 N. Y. 239, 30 N. E. 502; Buchanan v. Curtis, 25 Wis. 99.

91 And the owner is entitled to further compensation for an additional burden, such as a railroad, Williams v. Railroad Co., 16 N. Y. 97; or street railway, Craig v. Railway Co., 39 N. Y. 404; or pipes for natural gas, Bloomfield & R, N. Gaslight Co. v. Calkins, 62 N. Y. 386. But otherwise as to sewers and reservoirs, Stoudlnger v. Newark, 28 N. J. Eq. 187; West v. Bancroft, 32 Vt 367; or telegraph lines, Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75.

92 Bangor House Proprietary v. Brown, 33 Me. 309. Repairing may not show acceptance. State v. Bradbury, 40 Me. 154.

93 Buchanan v. Curtis, 25 Wis. 99; Witter v. Damitz, 81 Wis. 385, 51 N. W. 575; Brakken v. Railroad Co., 29 Minn. 41, 11 N. W. 124; Rex v. Inhabitants of Leake, 5 Barn. & Adol. 469.

94 Reed v. Inhabitants of Northfield, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 94poses only.95 In any case a dedication can be made only by the owner of the fee.96 A dedication of streets to a city is implied by the owner of land platting it for city lots with streets between them.97 For injuries to highways and obstructions of them the right of action is in the public. But if any person is specially damaged, he may have an individual action.98

Same - light And Air

228. An easement of light and air is a right to the uninterrupted flow of light, and possibly air, to the windows of a building over an adjoining lot. This right can be acquired by prescription in only a few of the United States.

At common law, when one had a building near the boundary line of his land, with windows opening on the adjoining lot, and had enjoyed the access of light over such lot during the period required by the statute of limitations for the acquisition of an easement, he was held to have a right not to have the light obstructed.99 This right would be infringed by the erection of a wall or building which would shut out the light from the windows of the building of the dominant estate.100 The power to acquire this easement by prescription has been recognized in only a few states.101 It may, however, be acquired by express grant, and in some states it is held that it may be raised by implied grant, as when there is a conveyance of land with buildings on it which overlook a vacant lot of the grantor.102 Where the easement may be acquired by prescription, its acquisition may be .prevented by the erection of any structure which shuts off the light before the full period has elapsed which is required by the statute of limitations.103 When the right exists, the burden on the servient estate must not be increased by the opening of new windows or the enlargement of old ones.104 If the old building is destroyed or pulled down, the easement can be claimed for a new structure erected in its place only when the windows are substantially the same as before.105 A change in the use of the building, however, does not destroy nor enlarge the right.106 In speaking of this easement, the word "air" is usually added to the word "light," though it seems that this is incorrect, and that the easement is only for the passage of light.107 No easement in a view or prospect can be acquired by prescription.108

95 Ayres v.. Railroad Co., 52 N. J. Law, 405, 20 Atl. 54; Mercer v. Wood-gate, L. R. 5 Q. B. 26; Arnold v. Holbrook, L. R. 8 Q. B. 96.

96 Baugan v. Mann, 59 111. 492; Lee v. Lake, 14 Mich. 12; Warren v. Brown, 31 Neb. 8, 47 N. W. 633.

97 Taylor v. Hopper, 62 N. Y. 649; Chapin v. Brown, 15 R. I. 579, 10 Atl. 639. Land may be dedicated for public parks in the same manner as for streets. President, etc., of City of Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. 431. So as to a burial place. Beatty v. Kurtz, 2 Pet. 566; Hunter v. Trustees of Sandy Hill, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 407.

98 Ft. Plain Bridge Co. v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 44; Rogers v. Rogers, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 131; State v. Parrott, 71 N. C. 311. And see Bateman v. Bluck, 18 Q. B. Div. 870; Mckee v. Perchment, 69 Pa. St. 342. For the right to go on adjoining land when a highway is impassable, see Absor v. French, 2 Show. 28; Campbell v. Race, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 408.

99 Cross v. Lewis, 2 Barn. & C. 686; Compton v. Richards, 1 Price, 27; Ren-shaw v. Bean, 18 Q. B. 112. Cf. White v. Bass, 7 Hurl. & N. 722; Haynes v. King [18931 3 Ch. 439; Callis v. Laugher [1894] 3 Ch. 659.