No one other than the owner of land, or one acting under authority from him, can effect a dedication,25 and an attenrpted such a corporation is subsequently created.

22. Post, Sec. 483.

23. Gaynor v. Bauer, 144 Ala. 448, 3 L. R. A. N. S. 1082, 39 So. 749; Cordano v. Wright, 159 Cal. 610, A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1044, 115 Pac. 227; H. A. Hillmer Co. v. Behr, 264 111. 568, 106 N. E. 481; In re Wellington, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 87, 26 Am. Dec. 631; Rowzee v. Pierce, 75 Miss. 846, 40 L. R. A. 402, 65 Am. St. Rep. 625, 23 So. 307; Normal School Dist. No. 30 v. Painter, 102 Mo. 464, 10 L. R. A. 493, 14 S. W. 938; Greene v. O'connor, 18

R. I. 56, 19 L. R. A. 262, 25 Atl. 692; Spokane v. Security Savings Soc, 82 Wash. 91, 143 Pac. 435.

24. Ante, Sec. 479 notes 11-13.

25. Johnson v. Dadeville, 127 Ala. 244, 28 So. 700; California Nav. & Improvement Co. v. Union Transportation Co., 126 Cal. 433, 46 L. R. A. 825, 58 Pac. 936; Shedd v. Alexander, 270 111. 117, 110 N. E. 327; Edenville v. R. R. Co., 77 Iowa, 69, 41 N. W. 568; Allen v. Meuwenberg, 108 Mich. 629, 66 N. W. 571; Stillman v. Olean, 210 N. Y. 168, 104 N. E. 128.

Dedication by one not the owner is not valididated by his subsequent acquisition of title, unless he thereafter in some way recognizes the dedication.26

One having a partial or limited interest in land cannot be affected by a dedication in which he does not participate. For instance, an existing easement in the land,27 or lien, by way of mortgage,28 or otherwise,29 is not affected by a dedication made by the owner of an estate in fee simple in the land, and a dedication by one cotenant is a nullity as regards the other cotenants.30 Likewise a reversioner or remainderman cannot be affected by a dedication made by the particular tenant alone.31

A municipal corporation, it has been held, may dedicate land owned by it to a particular public use,32 and

26. Boerner v. Mckillip, 52 Kan. 508, 35 Pac. 5; Kansas City Milling Co. v. Riley, 133 Mo. 574, 34 S. W. 835; Camden v. Mc-andrew & Forbes Co., 85 N. J. L. 260, 88 Atl. 1034; Chase v. Oregon City, 72 Ore. 527, 143 Pac. 1111; Bushnell v. Scott, 21 Wis. 451, 24 Am. Dec. 555.

27. Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Olyphant Borough, 224 Pa. 387, 73 Atl. 458; State v. Steamship Co., Ill La. 120, 35 So. 482; Detroit v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 23 Mich. 173; Sarcoxie v. Wild, 64 Mo. App. 403. See South Berwick v. York County, 98 Me. 108, 56 Atl. 623.

28. Hoole v. Atty. Gen. 22 Ala. 190; Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. Luckie, 143 Ga. 457, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 1105, 85 S. E. 332; H. A. Hillmer Co. v. Behr, 264 111. 568, 106 N. E. 481; Granite Bituminous Pav. Co. v. Mcmanus, 244 Mo. 184, 148 S. W. 621; Gate City v. Richmond, 97 Va. 337, 33 S. E. 615.

29. Hays v. Perkins, 109 Mo. 102, 18 S. W. 1127; Morning v. Lincoln, 93 Neb. 364, 140 N. W. 638.

30. South Baltimore Harbor & Imp. Co. v. Smith, 85 Md. 537, 37 Atl. 27; St. Louis v. Laclede, 96 Mo. 197, 9 Am. St. Rep. 334, 9 S. W. 581; Thomason v. Dayton, 40 Ohio St. 63; Daniels v. Almy, 18 R. I. 244, 27 Atl. 330; Scott v. State, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 629.

31. Wood v. Veal, 5 Barn. & Aid. 454; City of Durham v. Southern R. Co., 121 Fed. 894; Rives v. Dudley, 56 N. C. 126, 67 Am. Dec. 231; Schenley v. Com., 36 Pa. 29, 78 Am. Dec. 359; Mckinney v. Duncan, 121 Tenn. 265, 118 S. W. 683; See editorial note, 21 Ilarv. Law Rev. 151.

32. Boston v. Lecifew, 17 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 426; San Fran.

V. Calderwood 31 Cal. 586; Holladay v. City and County of San Francisco, 124 Cal.352, 57 a dedication by the United States government, by means of an Act of Congress, has been recognized33 as lias a dedication by a state.34