Atl. 801; Worthington v. Wade, 82 Tex. 26, 17 S. W. 520; Bacon v. Boston & M. R. Co., 83 Vt. 421, 76 Atl. 128; Lynchburg Traction & Light Co. v. Guill, 107 Va. 86, 57 S. E. 644; Cunningham v. Hendricks, 89 Wis. 632, 62 N. W. 410. But in Kentucky the continuous public user of a pass-way for fifteen years without let or hindrance from the owner has been regarded as raising a conclusive presumption of dedication. Bloomfield v. Allen, 146 Ky. 34, 141 S. W. 400.

40. Schwerdtle v. Placer County, 108 Cal. 589, 41 Pac. 448; Atlanta Railway & Power Co. v. Atlanta Rapid Transit Co., 113 Ga. 481, 39 S. E. 12; City of Chicago v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 152 111. 561, 38 N. E. 768; State v. Birmingham, 74 Iowa, 407, 38 N. W. 121; Southern Railway v. Coplinger's Adm'r, 151 Ky. 749, 152 S. W. 947; Neal v. Hopkins, 87 Md. 19, 39 Atl. 322; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake. 51 Minn. 381, 53 N. W. 703; New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co. v. Moye, 39 Miss. 374; Penquite v. Lawrence, 11 Ohio St. 274; Weiss v. South Bethlehem Borough, 136 Pa. St. 294, 20 Atl. 801; Watertown v. Troeh - S. Dak. - , 125 N. W. 501; Bennington County v. Manchester, 87 Vt. 555, 90 Atl. 502; Christianson v. Caldwell, 152 Wis. 135, 139 N. W. 751; Sturmer v. Randolph County Court, 42 W. Va. 724, 36 L. R. A. 300, 26 S. E. 532. But that acquiescence in public user for less than the prescriptive period is insufficient to evidence dedication, see Jones v. Peterson, 178 Iowa, 1389, 161 N. W. 181.

In a considerable number of jurisdictions the public user of one's land under claim of right, if continued for the prescriptive period, is regarded as giving rise to a conclusive presumption of the legal creation of rights of user in public, analogous to the conclusive presumption of a grant on which the doctrine of prescription for private rights has ordinarily been based. This matter we consider in connection with the doctrine of prescription. Post, Sec. 533.

41. That the question whether acquiescence in the user is such as to evidence an intention to dedicate is purely one of fact, see Folkstone Corporation v. Brock-man App. Cas. (1914) 338.

42. See per Blackburn J. in Greenwich Board of Works v. Maudslay, L. R. 5 Q. B. 404.

43. Barraclough v. Johnson, 8 Ad. & El. 99; Wooster v. Fiske, 115 Me. 161, 98 Atl. 378; Carpenter v. City of St. Joseph, 263 Mo. 705, 174 S. W. 53.

44. Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. (U. S.) 10, 13 L. Ed. 25; Loomis v. Connecticut Ry. & Lighting Co., 78 Conn. 156. 61 Atl. 539; Georgia R. R. & Banking Co. v. Atlanta. 118 Ga. 486, 45 S. E. 256; Chicago v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 152 111. 561, 38 N.e. 768; Pennsylvania Co. v. Plotz, 125 Ind. 26, 24 N. E. 343; Bradford v. Fultz, 167 Iowa, 686, 149 N. W. 925; Durgin v. Lowell, 3 Allen (Mass.) 398; Railroad v. Roseville, 76 Ohio St. 108, 81 N. E. 178; Lewis v. Portland.

25 Ore. 133, 22 L. R. A. 736, 42 Am. St. Rep. 772; Columbia & P. S. R. Co. v. Seattle, 33 Wash. 513, 74 Pac. 670.

45. Tutwiler v. Kendall, 113 Ala. 664, 21 So. 332; Latham v. Los Angeles, 87 Cal. 514, 25 Pac. 673; Ely v. Parsons, 55 Conn. 83, 10 Atl. 499; Savannah v. Standard Fuel Supply Co., 140 Ga. 353, 78 S. E. 906; Kyle v. Logan, 87 111. 64; Hansen v. Green, 275 111. 221, 113 N. E. 982; State v. Kansas City etc. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 139; Tucker v. Conrad, 103 Ind. 349. 2 N. E. 803; Rathinan v. Noron-berg, 21 Neb. 467, 32 N. W. Hutto v. Tindall, 6 Rich. L. (S. C.) 396; Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Montgomery, 85 Tex. 64, L9 S. W.

1015

For the most part enclosed, leaves outside his fence a strip suitable for passage, not apparently for his own convenience, and acquiesces in the public use of that strip, may frequently justify the inference of an intention on his part to dedicate such strip to the public use.46

In some jurisdictions it has been asserted that if the owner of land acquiesces in the public use thereof for such a length of time that the public accommodation and private rights might be materially affected by an interruption of the enjoyment, an intention to dedicate may be presumed.47 This statement, borrowed, directly or indirectly, from a dictum in an early case in' the Supreme Court of the United States,48 appears to be somewhat opposed to the cases above referred to, in which it is decided that the fact of user alone is not sufficient of itself to show a dedication,49 and it is difficult to see how the possibility of detriment to public or private interests by reason of the interruption of the use can have a bearing upon the question whether there has been a dedication, a question of the landowner's intention.50

46. See Mccracken v. Joliet, 271 111. 270, 111 N. E. 131; Carlson v. Allen, 90 Kan. 457, 135 Pac. 669; Neal v. Hopkins, 87 Md. 19, 39 Atl. 322; Boonville Special Road Dist. v. Fuser, 184 Mo. App. 634, 171 S. W. 962; Benton v. St. Louis, 217 Mo. 687, 118 S. W. 418, 129 Am. St. Rep. 561; Robison v. Gebauer, 98 Neb. 196, 152 N. W. 329; Johnson City v. Wolfe, 103 Tenn. 277, 52 S. W. 991; Schettler v. Lynch, 23 Utah, 305, 64 Pac. 955; Humphrey v. Krutz, 77 Wash. 152, 137 Pac. 80P.

47. Macon v. Franklin, 12 Ga. 239; Chicago v. Wright, 69 111. 318; Indianapolis v. Kingsbury, 101 Ind. 200, 51 Am. Rep. 749;

Marion v. Skillman, 127 Ind. 130, 11 L. L. A. 55, 26 N. E. 676; Cromer v. State, 21 Ind. App. 502, 52 N. E. 239; State v. Wilson, 42 Me. 9; Case v. Favier, 12 Minn. 89; Parrish v. Stephens, 1 Ore. 59; Hughes v. Providence etc. R. Co., 2 R. I. 493; Johnson City v. Wolfe, 103 Tenn. 277, 52 S. W. 991; Whittaker v. Ferguson, 16 Utah, 240, 51 Pac. 980; Richmond v. Stokes, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 713; Roundtree v. Hutchinson, 57 Wash. 414, 27 L. R A.. (N. S.) 875, 107 Pac. 345.

48. Cincinatti v. White, 6 Pet. 431

49. Ante, this section, note 39.

50. See Hayden v. Stone, 112 Mass. 346.

That the public user has been accompanied by expenditures on the part of the municipal authorities, to adapt the land to such user, and that the land owner knew of such expenditures, and acquiesced therein, would appear to be a consideration indicative of an intention on his part to dedicate, or perhaps operative to preclude him from denying such intention.51