The acceptance of the dedication may be by formal action on the part of the state or municipality, as representing the public,76 but this is not usually necessary.

97 N. E. 257; Rose v. Elizabeth-town, 275 111. 167, 114 N. E. 14; Steinauer v. Tell City, 146 Ind. 490, 45 N. E. 1056; Clendenin v. Maryland Construction Co. 86 Md. 80, 37 Atl. 709; Canton Co. v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 69, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 129, 66 Atl. 681; Village of Grandville v. Jenison, 84 Mich. 54, 47 N. W. 600; State v. Hamilton, 109 Tenn. 276, 70 S. W. 619.

75. Sanford v. Meridian, 52 Miss. 383; Christian v. Eugene, 49 Ore. 170, 89 Pac. 419; Highland Realty Co. v. Avondale Land Co., 174 Ala. 326, 56 So. 716.

75a. Ante, Sec. 482 notes 61, 62.

76. Little Rock v. Wright, 58 Ark. 142, 23 S. W. 876; City of Eureka v. Armstrong, 83 Cal. 623, 22 Pac. 928, 23 Pac. 1085; White v. Smith, 37 Mich. 291; State v. Atherton, 16 N. H. 203; State v. City of Elizabeth, 35 N. J. L. 359;

Any action on the part of the municipality showing that it has assumed control of the land dedicated is sufficient evidence of acceptance.77 Repairs or improvements made by, or under the authority of, officers who have general charge of highways, and power to lay them out, may show an acceptance of the dedication of a highway,78 though repairs made by a merely subordinate officer would not have such an effect.79 A mere user by the public is sufficient, according to the weight of authority, to justify a finding that there was an acceptance for most purposes,80 though not, according to some cases, for the purpose of imposing any burden or

Bellenot v. Richmond, 108 Va. 314, 61 S. E. 785. In Virginia there must, it appears, be an acceptance of record. Terry v. Mc-clung, 104 Va. 599, 52 S. E. 355.

77. Brewer v. City of Pine Bluff, 80 Ark. 489, 97 S. W. 1034; Penick v. Morgan County, 131 Ga. 385, 62 S. E. 300; People v. Johnson, 237 111. 237, 86 N. E. 676; Burroughs v. City of Cherokee, 134 Iowa, 429, 109 N. W. 876; Mulligan v. Mcgregor, 165 Ky. 222, 176 S. W. 1129; Lyons v. Mullen, 78 Neb. 151, 110 N. W. 743; In re Hunter, 163 N. Y. 542, 57 N. E. 735; Palmer v. East River Gas Co., 115 N. Y. App. Div. 677, 101 N. Y. Supp. 347; Jeffress v. Town of Greenville, 154 N. C. 490, 70 S. E. 919; Cincinnati & L. Ry Co. v. Carthage, 36 Ohio St. 631; Herrington v. Booth & Flinn, 252 Pa. 70, 97 Atl. 178; Doyle v. City of Chattanooga, 128 Tenn. 433, 4 N. C. C. A. 167, 161 S. W. 997; Spencer v. Arlington, 49 Wash. 121, 94 Pac. 904.

78. Town of Lake View v. Le Bahn, 120 I11. 92, 9 N. E. 269; Town of Fowler v. Linguist, 138

Ind. 566, 37 N. E. 133; Wright v. Tukey, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 290; Kaime v. Harty, 73 Mo. 316; Du Bois Cemetery Co. v. Griffin, 165 Pa. St. 81, 30 Atl. 840; Folsom v. Town of Underhill, 36 Vt. 580.

79. State v. Bradbury, 40 Me. 154; White v. Bradley, 66 Me. 254.

80. Stewart v. Conley, 122 Ala. 179, 27 So. 303; Tranmell v. Bradford - (Ala.) - 73 So. 894; Hall v. Kauffman, 106 Cal. 451, 39 Pac. 756; City of Denver v. Denver & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 Colo. 583, 31 Pac. 338; Phillips v. City of Stamford, 81 Conn. 408, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1114, 71 Atl. 361; Parsons v. Trustees of Atlanta University. 44 Ga. 529; Consumers' Co. v. Chica go, 268 I11. 113, 108 N. E. L017; Pittsburg, C. C. & St. Ry. Co. v. Warrum, 42 Ind. App. 217, 82 N. E. 934, 84 N. E. 356; Raymond v. Wichita, 70 Kan. 523, 79 Pac. 323; Riley v. Buchanan, 116 Ky. 625, 63 L. R. A. 642, 3 Ann. Cas.

788, 76 S. W. 527; Cushwa v. Williamsport, 117 Md. 306, 83 Atl. 389; Atty. Gen. v. Abbott, 154 Mass. 323, 13 L. R. A. 251, 28 N.

Liability on the municipality.81 Occasionally the view has been asserted that, in order that acceptance may be inferred from user, for any purpose whatsoever, the user must have continued for the prescriptive period.82 And in some cases the question of the sufficiency of user for this purpose has been said to be to a great extent dependent on whether the public convenience would suffer by a cessation of the user.83

E. 346; Minium v. Solel - (Mo.) - 183 S. W. 1037; Cassidy v. Sullivan, 75 Neb. 847, 106 N. W. 1027; Schmidt v. Spaeth, 82 N. J. L. 575, 83 Atl. 242; Montgomery v. Somers, 50 Ore. 259, 90 Pac. 674; Com. v. Moorehead, 118 Pa. 344, 4 Am. St. Rep. 599, 12 Atl. 424; Watertown v. Troeh, 25 S. D. 21, 125 N. W. 501; Morris v. Blunt, 49 Utah, 243, 161 Pac. 1127; Seattle v. Hinckley, 67 Wash. 273, 121 Pac. 444.

In some states, however, public user is not regarded as sufficient evidence of acceptance, for any purpose. Palmer v. Palmer, 150 N. Y. 139, 55 Am. St. Rep. 653, 44 N. E. 966; Smith v. Smythe, 197 N. Y. 457, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 524, 90 N. E. 1121; Cincinnati & M. V. R. Co. v. Roseville, 76 Ohio St. 108, 81 N. E. 178; Lynchburg Traction & Light Co. v. Guill, 107 Va. 86, 57 S. E. 644 (semble); Chapman v. Sault Ste. Marie, 146 Mich. 23, 109 N. W. 53.

81. Pennick v. Morgan County, 131 Ga. 385, 62 S. E. 300; People v. Commissioners, 52 111. 498; Cochran v. Town of Shepherds-ville - (Ky.) - 43 S. W. 250: May-berry v. Standish, 56 Me. 342; Kennedy v. Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, 65 Md. 514, 57 Am. Rep. 346, 9 Atl. 234;

Ogle v. City of Cumberland, 90 Md. 59, 62, 44 Atl. 1015; Downend v. Kansas City, 156 Mo. 60, 51 L. R. A. 170, 56 S. W. 902; Gilder v. City of Brenham, 67 Tex. 345, 3 S. W. 309; Tower v. Rutland, 56 Vt. 28; Clarendon v. Rutland R. Co., 75 Vt. 6, 52 Atl. 1057; Hast v. Piedmont & C. R. Co., 52 W. Va. 396, 44 S. E. 155; See Stevens v. Nashua, 46 N. H. 192. Contra, Ivey v. City of Birmingham, 190 Ala. 196, 67 So. 506; Guthrie v. New Haven, 31 Conn. 308; Phillips v. Stamford, 81 Conn. 408, 71 Atl. 361 (dictum); Benton v. St. Louis, 217 Mo. 687, 129 Am. St. Rep. 560, 118 S. W. 418; Ack-erman v. Williamsport, 227 Pa. 591, 76 Atl. 421; Kniss v. Du-quesne Borough, 255 Pa. 417, 100 Atl. 132; Caston v. City of Rock Hill, 107 S. C. 124, 92 S. E. 191; Doyle v. Chattanooga, 128 Tenn. 433, 161 S. W. 997 (dictum).