DEDICATION. An appropriation of land to some public use, made by the owner, and accepted for such use by or on behalf of the public. Barteau v. West, 23 Wis. 416 ; Trus tees of M. E. Church of Hoboken v. City of Hoboken, 33 N. J. L. 13, 97 Am. Dec. 696; Smith v. City of San Luis Obispo, 95 Cal. 463, 30 Pac. 591; Brown v. Gunn, 75 Ga. 441. The intentional appropriation of land by the owner to some proper public use, reserv ing to himself no rights therein inconsistent with the full exercise and enjoyment of such use. Northport Wesleyan Grove Camp Meet ing Ass'n v. Andrews, 104 Me. 342, 71 Atl. 1027, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 976.
It was unknown to the civil law ; New Or leans v. U. S., 10 Pet. (U. S.) 662, 9 L. Ed. 573; and is said to have been the only meth od of conferring certain rights on the public at common law ; Post v. Pearsall, 22 Wend. (N. L) 425 ; Stevens v. Nashua, 46 N. H. 192.
It need not be by deed or in writing, but may be by act in pais, and the fee need not pass, since it has reference to possession and not to ownership ; Benn v. Hatcher, 81 Va. 25, 59 Am. Rep. 645. See cases collected in 9 L. R. A. 551, note.
Empress dedication is that made by deed, vote, or declaration.
Implied dedication is that presumed from an acquiescence in the public use, or from some act of the owner which operates against him by way of estoppel in pais; Wood v. See ly, 32 N. Y. 116 ; Brown v. Manning, 6 Ohio, 298, 27 Am. Dec. 255.
To be valid it must be made by the owner of the fee; 5 B. & Ald. 454 ; Ward v. Davis, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 502 ; 4 Campb. 16; Forney v. Calhoun County, 84 Ala. 215, 4 South. 153 ; or, if the fee be subject to a naked trust, by the equitable owner ; Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 431, 8 L. Ed. 452 ; Williams v. Society, 1 Ohio St. 478 ; and to the public at large; Post v. Pearsall, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 425; State v. Wilkinson, 2 Vt. 480, 21 Am. Dec. 560; New Orleans v. U. S., 10 Pet. (U. S.) 662, 9 L. Ed. 573 ; Doe v. Jones, 11 Ala. 63. The existence of a corporation as gran tee is not required, as the public is an ever existing grantee capable of taking for public use ; Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 431, 8 L. Ed. 452 ; Trustees of M. El Church of Hoboken v. City of Hoboken, 33 N. J. L. 13, 97 Am. Dec. 696; Rutherford v. Taylor, 38
Mo. 317 ; Town of Warren v. Town of Jack sonville, 15 Ill. 236, 58 Am. Dec. 610.
In making the appropriation, no particular formality is required, but any act or declara tion, whether written or oral, which clearly expresses an intent to dedicate, will amount to a dedication, if accepted by the public, and will conclude the donor from ever after asserting any right incompatible with the public use ; Washb. Easem. 133 ; 11 M. & W. 827; Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. (II S.) 431, 8 L. Ed. 452 ; Post v. Pearsall, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 450; Hobbs v. Lowell, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 405, 31 Am. Dec. 145 ; State v. Wilkinson, 2 Vt. 480, 21 Am. Dec. 560 ; Trustees of Dover v. Fox, 9 B. Monr. (Ky.) 201; Mayor & Coun cil of Macon v. Franklin, 12 Ga. 239 ; Mis souri Institute for Education of Blind v. How, 27 Mo. 211; Oswald v. Grenet, 22 Tex. 94; Smith v. City of San Luis Obispo, 95 Cal. 463, 30 Pac. 591; Dobson v. Hohenadel, 148 Pa. 367, 23 Atl. 1128 ; Taylor v. Philippi, 35 W. Va. 554, 14 S. E. 130 ; Land v. Smith, 44 La. Ann. 931, 11 South. 577 ; Western Ry. of Alabama v. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272, 11 South. 483, 17 L. R. A. 474 ; Wolfe v. Town of Sul livan, 133 Ind. 331, 32 N. E. 1017 ; the vital principle of the dedication being the intention (animus dedicamdi), which must be unequivo cally manifested, and clearly and satisfacto rily appear ; Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642 ; Village of White Bear v. Stewart; 40 Minn. 284, 41 N. W. 1045 ; Baker v. Vanderburg, 99 IVIo. 378, 12 S. W. 462 ; Shellhouse v. State, 110 Ind. 509, 11 N. E. 484 ; Waugh v. Leech, 28 Ill. 491; Lee v. Lae, 14 Mich. 12, 90 Am. Dec. 220; Forney v. Calhoun Coun ty, 84 Ala. 215, 4 South. 153 ; Hope v. Bar nett, 78 Cal. 9, 20 Pac. 245 ; State v. Adkins, 42 Kan. 203, 21 Pac. 1069. But it must be determined from the acts and explanatory declarations of the party in connection with the surrounding circumstances ; he cannot subsequently testify as to what were his real intentions ; Fossion v. Landry, 123 Ind. 136, 24 N. E. 96 ; Lamar County v. Clements, 49 Tex. 347. If there be doubt as to whether there was a dedication to public use, or only for a temporary purpose, the intention of the owner may be proved ; Lamar County v. Clements, 49 Tex. 347.