A common law dedication for highway purposes,18 or even for a park, common, or square,19 does not affect the ownership of the land, but merely gives to the public a right of user therein. When, however, land is dedicated for a purpose which excludes the idea of its use by any and every individual, as in the case of a dedication for a school, church, or cemetery, the corporation or association which carries out the purpose of the dedication must have an exclusive control of the land which is practically equivalent to possession thereof.20 In some states the view has been taken that in the case of land dedicated for a park,21 or even for a highway,22 the municipal corporation which controls the land so dedicated in behalf of the public has a right of possession therein which entitles it to maintain ejectment against an intruder thereon, a view which is not entirely satis232. But see Leadville v. Bonn Mining Co., 37 Colo. 248, 8 L. Ra. (N. S.) 422, 11 Ann. Cas. 443, 86 Pac. 1038.

18. Lade v. Shepherd, 2 Strange 1004; City of San Francisco v. Calderwood, 31 Cal. 585, 91 Am. Dec. 542; Robbins v. White, 52 Fla. 613, 42 So. 841; Indianapolis,

B. & W. R. Co. v. Hartley, 67 I11. 439; Farwell v. Chicago, 247 I11. 235, 93 N. E. 168; Wilder v. City of St. Paul, 12 Minn. 192; Charleston Rice Milling Co. v. Bennett, 18 S. C. 254.

19. Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 431, 8 L. R. A. 452; Attorney General v. Abbott, 154 Mass. 323, 13 L. R. A. 251, 28 N. B. 346; Porter v. International Bridge Co., 200 N. Y. 234, 93 N. E. 716; Pome-roy v. Mills, 3 Vt. 279, 23 Am. Dec. 207; Raleigh County Sup'rs v. Ellison, 8 W. Va. 308.

20. It has accordingly been decided that one who has dedicated land for a cemetery has thereafter no such right to possession of the land as to be entitled to maintain ejectment. Campbell v. City of Kansas, 102 Mo. 326, 10 L. R. A. 593, 13 S. W. 897; Hunter v. Trustees of Sandy Hill, 6 Hill. (N. Y.) 407.

21. Methodist Episcopal Church v. Hoboken, 33 N. J. L. 13, 97 Am. Dec. 696; Price v. Plain-field, 40 N. J. L. 608.

22. Visalia v. Jacob, 65 Cal. 434, 52 Am. Rep. 303, 4 Pac. 433; City and County of San Francisco v. Grote, 120 Cal. 59, 41 L. R. A. 335, 65 Am. St. Rep. 155, 52 Pac. 127; Lee v. Harris, 206 111. 428, 99 Am. St. Rep. 176, 69 N. E. 230; Winona v. Huff, 11 Minn. 119; Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. v. Hoboken, 36 N. J. L. 540; Ocean Grove factory from the standpoint of principle.23 It is somewhat difficult to see how a mere right of user in the public can confer on the municipality a right of possession, sufficient to sustain ejectment, it being con ceded that a private individual having a mere right of user, that is, an easement, can have no such right of possession. Even though the public right of user is of such character and extent as entirely to preclude any user of the land by the dedicator, or by his successor in interest, it seems desirable, for the purpose of legal theory, to deny the element of possession to a mere right of using the land.

The statutes in regard to dedication by the recording of a plat frquently provide that the ownership of the land, and not a mere right of user, shall be vested in the municipality in trust for the public.24 Under such a statute the title to the land is properly to be regarded as passing by way of grant or conveyanc rather than by way of dedication, as the term was understood at common law. The statute makes the plat in effect a conveyance of the land which purports to be devoted to public use.

Whether the ownership or merely a right of user is vested in the public, the land cannot he aliened by

Camp Meeting Ass'n v. Bertha1l, 63 N. J. L. 312, 43 Atl. 887.

23. For contrary decisions, see Savannah v. Steamboat Co., R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 342; Covington v. Freking, 8 Bush. (Ky.) 121 ; Bay County v. Bradley, 39 Mich. 133, 33 Am. Rep. 367; Canton Co. v. City of Baltimore, 106 Md. 69, 66 Atl. 679, 11 L. R. A.(n S.) 129, 67 Atl. 274; Southampton v. Betts, 163 N. Y. 454, 57 N. E. 762; Street Comm'rs v. Taylor, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 129; Racine v. Crotsenberg, 61 Wis.

481, 50 Am. Rep. 149. 21 N. W. 520.

24. See Leadville v. Bohn .Min. Co., 37 Colo. 248, 86 Pac. 10 Gebhardt v. Reeves, 75 111. 301; City of Pella v. Scholte, 21 Iowa, 463; Hutchinson v. Danley, 88 Kan. 437, 129 Pac. 163; Village of Grandville v. Jenson 84 Mich. 54, 47 N. W. 600; City of Winona v. Huff. 11 Minn. 119; Carroll v. Elmwood. 88 Neb. 352, 129 N. W. 537; Incorporated Vil lage of Fulton's Lessee v Mehren-feld, 8 Ohio St 140.

1886 Seal Property. [Sec. 486 the public authorities to individuals,25 nor used for purposes other than those for which it was dedicated.26 A use of the land by the public authorities for purposes other than those contemplated in the dedication will be restrained upon the application of owners of other land injured by such change of use,27 and a suit for this purpose may be maintained by the dedicator, it seems, in case the ownership of the land is still in him,28 but not if, under the statute, the owner25. Douglass v. City Council of Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599, 43 L. R. A. 376, 24 So. 745; Rudolph Herman Co. v. City and Counly of San Francisco, 154 Cal. 688, 99 Pac. 169; City of Alton v. Illinois Transp. Co., 12 I11 38, 52 Am. Dec. 479; Trustees of August v. Perkins, 3 B. Mou. (Ky.) 437; Cummings v. City of St. Louis, 90 Mo. 259, 2 S. W. 130; Haberly v. Treadgold, 67 Ore. 425, 136 Pac. 334; Corporation of Seguin v. Ireland, 58 Tex. 183.

26. Western Railway of Ala. v. Alabama G. T. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 17 L. R. A. 474, 11 So. 483: Arkansas River Packet Cc. v. Sorrels, 50 Ark. 466, 8 S. W. 683; Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co., 160 Cal. 699, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 185, 117 Pac. 906; Lutterloh v. Town of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306; Ward v. Field Museum, 241 111. 496, 89 N. E. 731; East Chicago Co. v. East Chicago, 171 Ind. 654, 87 N. E. 17; Hopkinsville v. Jarrett, 156 Ky. 777, 162 S. W. 85; Codman v. Crocker, 203 Mass. 146, 89 N. E. 177; Board of Regents for Normal School-dist. No 3 v. Painter, 102 Mo. 464, 10 L. R. A. 493, 14 S. W. 938; Trustees of ship of the land is in the public.29

Methodist Episcopal Church of Hoboken v. City of Hoboken, 33 N. J. L. 13, 97 Am. Dec. 696; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Cincinnati, 76 Ohio St. 481, 81 N. E. 983; Church v. Portland, 18 Ore. 73, 6 L. R. A. 259.

27. Douglass v. City Council of Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599, 43 L. R. A. 376, 24 So. 745; Lutterloh v. City of Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306; Strange v. Hill & West Dubuque St. Ry. Co., 54 Iowa, 669, 7 N. W. 115; Price v. Thompson, 48 Mo. 363; Dodge v. North End Improvement Ass'n, 189 Mich. 16, Ann Cas. 1918E, 485, 155 N. W. 438; Row-zee v. Pierce, 75 Miss. 846, 40 L. R. A. 402, 65 Am. St. Rep. 625, 23 So. 307; Huber v. Gazley, 18 Ohio, 18, 3 Ohio St. 399; Church v. City of Portland, 18 Ore. 73; Morrow v. Highland Grove Traction Co., 219 Pa. 619, 123 Am. St. Rep. 677, 69 Atl. 41; Clement v. City of Paris, 107 Tex. 200, 175 S. W. 672.

28. Hardy v. City of Memphis, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 127; Rowzee v. Pierce, 75 Miss. 846, 40 L. R. A. 402, 65 Am. St. Rep. 625, 23 So. 307. But see Thorndike v. Milwaukee Auditorium Co., 143 Wis. 1, 126 N. W. 881.

In case a right of user only is vested in the public, an abandonment of the right has the effecl of leaving the land free from the burden thereof, in the original dedicator or those claiming under him.30 And even when, under the statute, the ownership is vested in the public, if the authorities entirely relinquish the use of the land, or the use for which the land was dedicated becomes impossible, the land has been held to revert to the original dedicator, or to persons claiming under him.31

A mere failure on the part of the public to exercise the right of user, or the cessation of such exercise, does not show an abandonment,32 nor is an improper

29. United States v. Illinois C. R. Co., 154 U. S. 225, 38 L. Ed. 971; Thorndike v. Milwaukee Auditorium Co., 143 Wis. 1, 126 N. W. 881. Contra, Warren v. City of Lyons City, 22 Iowa, 351.

30. Mahoning County Comr's v. Young, 8 C C. A. 27, 59 Fed. 96; Matthews v. Bloodworth, 111 Ark. 545, 165 S. W. 263; Olin v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 25 Colo. 177, 53 Pac. 454; Benham v. Potter, 52 Conn. 248; Robbins v. White, 52 Fla. 613, 42 So. 841; Bayard v. Hargrove, 45 Ga. 342; Thomsen v. Mccormick, 136 111. 135, 26 N. E. 373; Town of Freedom v. Norris, 128 Ind. 377, 27 N. E. 869; Kitzman v. Green-halgh, 164 Iowa, 166, 145 N. W. 505; Baltimore & O. It. Co. v. Gould, 67 Md. 60, 8 Atl. 754; Briel v. City of Natchez, 48 Miss. 423; Tracy v. Bittle, 213 Mo. 302,112 S. W. 45; Porter v. International I'.ridge Co., 200 N. Y. 234, 93 N. E. 716; Rowe v. James, 71 Wash. 267, 128 Pac. 539.

31. Hill v. Kimball, 269 I11. 398, 110 N. E. 18; Board of Sup'rs of Kent County v. City of Grand Rapids, 61 Mich. 144, 27 N. W. 888; Gaskins v. Williams, 235 Mo. 563, 139 S. W. 117; City of Newark v. Watson, 56 N. J. L. 667, 24 L. R. A. 843, 29 Atl. 487; Heard v. City of Brooklyn, 60 N. Y. 242; Board of Education of the Incorporated Village of Van Wert v. Inhabitants of Van Wert, 18 Ohio St. 221, 98 Am. Dec. 114; Haberly v. Treadgold, 67 Ore. 425, 136 Pac. 334; State v. Travis County, 85 Tex. 435, 21 So. 1029: Sow-adzki v. Salt Lake County, 36 Utah, 127, 104 Pac. 111.

32. Santa Ana v. Santa Ana Valley Irr. Co., 163 Cal. 211, 124 Pac. 847; Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. v. Council Bluffs, 109 Iowa, 425, 80 N. W. 564; Gardarl v. Humboldt. 87 Kan. 41. 123 Par. 764; Rowan v. Portland, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 232; Briel v. Natchez, 48 Miss. 423; Smith v. State, 23 N. J. L. 712, Spencer use of the land by the public authorities sufficient in itself to terminate the rights of the public therein.33 v. Peterson, 41 Ore. 257, 68 Pac. 519; Pittsburg v. Epping-carpen-ter Co., 194 Pa. St. 318, 45 Atl. 129; Hogan v. Jamestown, 32 R. I. 528, 80 Atl. 271; Basic City v. Bell, 114 Va. 157, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1031, 76 S. E. 336; Olson Land Co. v. City of Seattle, 76 Wash. 142, 136 Pac. 118; Lins v. Seefield, 126 Wis. 610, 105 N. W. 917.

33. Barclay v. Howell, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 498, 8 L. R. A. 478; Mcalpine v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 68 Kan. 207, 64 L. R. A. 85, 1 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 452, 75 Pac. 73; Parker v. City of St. Paul, 47 Minn. 317, 50 N. W. 347; Goode v. City of St. Louis, 113 Mo. 257, 20 S. W. 1048; Williams v. First Presbyterian Soc. in Cincinnati, 1 Ohio St. 478; Hardy v. City of Memphis, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 127; Thorndike v. Milwaukee Auditorium Co., 143 Wis. 1, 126 N. W. 881.