A dedication need not be by any formal act or declaration, and it is sufficient if in any way the owner of the land indicates an intention to devote the land to the public use.34a The act of dedication is affirmative in character, and the intention to dedicate must be clearly shown.35 If, however, the acts of the owner of the land are such as unequivocally to indicate an intention to dedicate, the fact that he had no such intention is immaterial.36 In case his acts are equivocal in character, he may, acpac. 146; Attorney General v. Tarr, 148 Mass. 309, 2 L. R. A. 87, 19 N. E. 358; State v. Woodward, 23 Vt. 92.

33. United States v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 154 U. S. 225, 237, 38 L. Ed. 971; Cook v. Burlington, 30 Iowa, 94, 6 Am. Rep. 649; Wells v. Pennington County, 2 S. D. 1, 39 Am. St. Rep. 758, 48 N. W. 305.

34. Snowden v. Loree, 122 Fed. 493; Zinc Co. v. City of La Salle, 117 111. 411, 2 N. E. 40G, 8 N. E. 81; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Scott, 74 Ind. 29; Reilly v. City of Racine, 51 Wis. 526, 8 N. W. 417.

34a. Hill v. Houk, 155 Ala. 448, 46 So. 562; Quinn v. Anderson, 70 Cal. 454, 11 Pac. 746; Godfrey v. City of Alton, 12 111. 29, 52 Am. Dec. 476; Williams v. Wiley, 16 Ind. 362; Hall v. Mcleod, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 98, 74 Am. Dec. 400; Wright v. Tukey, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 290; Buntin v. Danville, 93 Va. 200, 24 S. E. 30.

35. Harper v. State, 109 Ala.

66, 19 So. 901; Monterey v. Malarin, 99 Cal. 290, 33 Pac. 840; Denver v. Jacobson, 17 Colo. 497, 30 Pac. 246; City of Hartford v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 59 Con. 250, 22 Atl. 37; Swift v. Lithonia, 101 Ga. 706, 29 S. E. 12; Bethel v. Pruett, 215 111. 162, 74 N. E. 1ll; State v. Green, 41 Iowa, 693; O'malley v. Dillenbeck Lumber Co., 141 Iowa, 186, 119 N. W. 601; Hayden v. Stone, 112 Mass. 346; State v. Nudd, 23 N. H. 327; Heiple v. East Portland, 13 Ore. 97; Cincinnati & M. V. R. Co., v. Rose-ville, 76 Ohio St. 108, 81 N. E. 178; Harris v. Commonwealth, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 833; Atlas Lumber Co. v. Quirk, 28 S. Dak. 643, 135 N. W. 172; Provident Trust Co. v. City of Spokane, 63 Wash. 92, 114 Pac. 1030; Lynchburg Traction & Light Co. v. Guill, 107 Va. 86, 57 S. E. 644.

36. Town of Holly Grove v. Smith, 63 Ark. 5, 37 S. W. 956; Frauenthal v. Slaten, 91 Ark. 350, 121 S. W. 395; Denver v. Clements, 3 Colo. 484; Hanson v.

Cording to some decisions, testify as to his actual intention.37

The existence or non existence of the intent to dedicate in any particular case is a question of fact rather than of law.38

- Public user as evidence. There are numerous decisions to the effect that the mere fact that land is used by the public for a greater or less time does not in itself show a dedication thereof by the owner,39

Proffer, 23 Idaho 705, 132 Pac. 573; Seidschlag v. Antioch, 207 111. 280, 69 N. E. 949; Miller v. Indianapolis, 123 Ind. 196, 24 N. E. 228; Tise v. Whitaker Harvey Co., 146 N. C. 374, 59 S. E. 1012; Cole v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co., 17 N. Dak. 409, 17 Ann. Cas. 304, 117 N. W. 354; Kuck v. Wakefield, 58 Ore. 549, 115 Pac. 428; Lamar County v. Clements, 49 Tex. 347; Champ v. Nicholas County Court, 72 W. Va. 475, 78 S. E. 361.

37. Bidinger v. Bishop, 76 Ind. 244; Goodfellow v. Riggs, 88 Iowa, 540, 55 N. W. 319; City of Chicago v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 152 111. 561, 38 N. E. 768; Helm v. Mcclure, 107 Cal. 199, 40 Pac. 437. Contra, Perkins v. Fielding, 119 Mo. 149, 24 S. W. 444, 27 S. W. 1100.

38. City of Hartford v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 59 Conn. 250, 22 Atl. 37; Harmony v. Clark, 250 111. 57, 95 N. E. 47; Owensboro v. Muster, 111 Ky. 856, 64 S. W. 840; Cushwa v. Williamsport, 117 Md. 306, 83 Atl. 389; Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co., 78 Mich. 278, 18 Am. St. Rep. 441, 44 N. W. 270; Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35, 24 N. W. 287; New it must have come to the knowledge of the owner of the land, the owner's acquiescence therein may justify the inference that he intended that it be devoted to such use.42 If the user is not as of right, but is based upon a license or permission given to individuals or to a class of individuals, the owner's acquiescence therein can obviously not support an inference of dedication.43 When the owner of land leaves it open in whole or in part as a means of access to his own premises, the fact that he allows the public generally to use it for purposes of passage is but slight, if any, evidence of an intention to dedicate, since he could not conveniently leave it open to those persons coming to his own premises and close it as against all others.44 And the owner's mere acquiescence in the use of land by the public for purposes of travel or recreation can furnish but slight evidence of dedication when such land is unenclosed land, not in use for purposes of cultivation or otherwise.45 That, on the other hand, one whose land is

Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co. v. Moye, 39 Miss. 374; Benton v. St. Louis, 217 Mo. 687, 118 S. W. 418; Wood v. Hurd, 34 N. J. L. 87; Waters v. Philadelphia, 208 Pa. St. 189, 57 Atl. 523; Folsom v. Town of Underhill, 36 Vt. 580. The facts on which a finding of dedication vel non, in a large number of cases, was based, are stated and considered in a note to Benton v. St. Louis, 129 Am. St. Rep. 582 et seq.

39. Folkstone Corp. v. Brock-man (1914) App. Cas. 338; Irwin v. Dixion, 19 How. (U. S.) 10 13 L. Ed. 25; Mckey v. Village of Hyde Park, 134 U. S. 84, 33 L. Ed. 860; Steele v. Sullivan, 70 Ala. 589; San Francisco & Grote, 120 Cal. 59, 41 L. R. A. 335, 65 Am. St. Rep. 155, 52 Pac. 127; Healey v. Atlanta, 125 Ga. 736, 54 S. E. 749; Palmer v. Chicago, 248 111. 201, 93 N. E. 765; Johnson v. Robertson, 156 Iowa, 64, 135 N. W. 585; Cyr v. Madore, 73 Me. 53; Hayden v. Stone, 112 Mass. 346; Stacey v. Miller, 14 Mo. 478; Nelson v. Reick, 96 Neb. 486, 148 N. W. 331 ; Lewis v. City of Portland, 25 Ore. 133, 42 Am. St Rep. 772; Weiss v. Borough of South Bethlehem, 136 Pa. 294, 20 but the owner's acquiescence in such user of the land is a fact to be considered in connection with other facts bearing on the question of dedication,40 the weight to be attributed to such acquiescence depending, it would seem, on the length and character of the user, the nature of the place in which it occurs, the ability of the owner to prevent such user by the public without interfering with his own user of the land, as well as other circumstances.41 The theory is that if the public user has been openly as of right, and for so long a time that