This section is from the book "The Law Of Real Property and Other Interests In Land", by Herbert Thorn Dike Tiffany. Also available from Amazon: A Treatise on the Modern Law of Real Property and Other Interests in Land .
A dedication may be made subject to reservations in favor of the dedicator or to restrictions upon the freedom of use of the land by the public. Thus it has been held that a highway may be dedicated, to be used only at. certain seasons,2 or subject to a right in the dedicator or in others to use the land for certain purposes, or at certain times.3 And the dedication of a highway may he
1. See the admirable discussion in the editorial note in 16 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 128.
2. Hughes v. Bingham, 135 N.
3.. Mercer v. Woodgate, 1.. R.
5 Q. B. 26; Arnold v. . Blaker, L.
In cases in which land was dedicated for a highway, a reservation, in favor of the dedicator, of a right to locate and maintain, or to enable others to locate and maintain, railway tracks in the highway, has ordinarily been regarded as valid,5 while on the other hand a general reservation of the control of public utilities in connection with the highway has not been upheld.6 A stipulation that the public user of the highway shall be subject to certain specific restrictions on the power to remove trees or grass from parts of the land has been supported.7 A provision, in connection with the dedication, that the municipality shall make certain improvements has been given effect as a condition
R. 6 Q. B. 433; City of Nobles-ville v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co., 130 Ind. 1, 29 N. E. 484; City of Dubuque v. Benson, 23 Iowa, 248; Atlantic City v. Associated Realties Corp. 73 N. J. Eq. 721, 17 Ann. Cas. 743, 70 Atl. 345; City of Cohoes v. President, etc., Delaware & H. Canal Co., 134 N. Y. 397, 31 N. E. 887.
4. Stafford v. Coyney, 7 Barn. & C. 257; Home Laundry Co. v. Louisville, 168 Ky. 479, 182 S. W. 645; Hemphill v. Boston, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 195; Tyler v. Sturdy, 108 Mass. 196; Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church of Hoboken v. City of Hoboken, 33 N. J. L. 13, 97 Am. Dec. 696.
5. Noblesville v. Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co., 130 Ind. 1, 29 N. E. 484; Am v. Chesapeake & O. Ry., 171 Ky. 157, 188 S. W. 340;
Ayres v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 44, 57 Am. Rep. 538, 3 Atl. 885; 52 N. J. L. 405, 20 Atl. 54; Tallon v. Hoboken, 59 N. J. L. 383, 60 N. J. L. 212, 37 Atl. 895; Oklahoma City & T. R. Co. v. Dunham, 39 Tex. Civ. 575, 88 S. W. 849. And so, apparently, a reservation of a right to place a canal in the highway may be valid. City of Cohoes v. President, etc. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 134 N. Y. 397, 31 N. E. 887.
6. Jones v. Carter, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 450, 101 S. W. 514; Bradley v. Spokane & I. E. R. Co., 79 Wash. 455, 140 Pac. 688.
7. Avis v. Borough of Vine-land, 56 N. J. L. 474, 23 L. R. A. 685, 28 Atl. 1039; Young v. Landis, 73 N. J. L. 266, 62 Atl. 1133.
That a stipulation in favor of the dedicator, made at the time of dedication, is invalid, does not ordinarily invalidate the dedication.11 But a stipulation for a right to revoke the dedication has been regarded as showing an intention not to dedicate.12 And there is evidently no dedication when the owner of the land retains the power to determine in the future what part of the land shall be devoted to the public use.13
Although, by a statutory dedication, the ownership of the land dedicated would othenwise be vested in the municipality,14 the dedicator may, it has been decided, by an express provision on the plat, retain the ownership, a right of user merely being vested in the public,15 and he may, likewise, it seems, expressly retain the minerals in the land dedicated,16 the ownership of which would otherwise be vested in the municipality.17
8. People v. Williams, 64 Cal. 498, 2 Pac. 393: Jenkins County v. Dickey, 139 Ga. 91, 76 S. E. 856.
9. Peoples' Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Chicago. 255 111. 612, 99 N. E. 703; St. Louis v. Meier, 77 Mo. 13; Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. Luckie, 143 Ga. 457, 85 S. E. 332.
10. Perth Amboy Trust Co. v. Perth Amboy, 75 N. J. L. 291, 68 Atl. 84. See the comments on this case in 21 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 357. Compare Richards v. Cincinnati, 31 Ohio St. 506.
11. City of Noblesville v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co., 130 Ind. 1, 29 N. E. 484; Des Moines v. Hall, 24 Iowa, 234; Richards v. Cincinnati, 31 Ohio St. 506; Riddle v. Town of Charlestown, 43 W. Va. 796, 28 S. E. 831; State v. Spokane St. Ry. Co., 19 Wash. 518, 41 L. R. A. 515, 67 Am. St. Rep. 739, 53 Pac. 719.
12. San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 541.
13. Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge v. Bachman, 66 N. Y. 261.
14. Ante, Sec. 482, note 64.
15. Dubuque v. Benson, 23 Iowa, 248.
16. Brown v. City of Carthage, 128 Mo. 10, 30 S. W.. 312; Dubuque v. Benson, 23 Iowa, 248.
17. Des Moines v. Hall. 24 Iowa, 231; Zinc Co. v. City of La Salle, 117 Ill. 411. 2 N. E, 406, 8 N. E. 81; Hawesvllle v. Hawes' Heirs. 6 Bush. (Ky)