A mere acquiescence by the owner of land in its occasional and varying use for travel by the public is insufficient to establish a ded ication thereof, as a street by adverse user ; Corn. v. R. Co., 135 Pa. 256, 19 Atl. 1051. And, without any express appropriation by the owner, a dedication may be presumed from twenty years' use of his land by the public, with his knowledge ; Hoole v. Atty.
Gen., 22 Ala. 190 ; Noyes v. Ward, 19 Conn. 250 ; Larned v. Lamed, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 421; Smith v. State, 23 N. J. L. 130 ; Green v. Oakes, 17 Ill. 249 ; Coro. v. Cole, 26 Pa. 187 ; or from any shorter period, if the use be accompanied by circumstances which favor the presumption, the fact of dedication being a conclusion to be drawn, in each particular case, by the- jury, who as against the owner have simply to determine whether by per mitting the public use he has intended a dedi cation ; 5 Taunt. 125 ; Denning v. Roome, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 651; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. (U. S.) 10, 13 L. Ed. 25 ; State v. Hill, 10 Ind. 219; Whittaker v. Ferguson, 16 Utah, 240, 51' Pac. 980 ; Dimon v. People, 17 Ill. 416 ; 4 El. & Bl. 737. Public use of a right of- way over public land for seven years is sufficient under U. S. R. S. § 2477; O'Kano gan County v. Cheetham, 37 Wash. 682, 80 Pac. 262, 70 L. R. A. 1027. But this pre sumption, being merely an inference from the public use, coupled with circumstances indic ative the owner's intent to dedicate, is open to rebuttal by the proof of circumstanc es indicative of the absence of such an in tent ; Bowers v. Mfg. Co., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 332 ; State v. Inhabitants of Strong, 25 Me. 297 ; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. (U. S.) 10, 13 L. Ed. 25 ; 7 C. & P. 578 ; City of St. Louis v. Wetzel, 110 Mo. 260, 19 S. W. 534;. McKey v. Hyde Park, 134 U. S. 84, 10 Sup. Ct. 512, 33 L. Ed. 860. Mere non-user for less than the statutory period is not enough unless coupled with evidence of intention ; Wood v. Hurd, 34 N. J. L. 91; Hoole v. Atty. Gen., 22 Ala. 190 ; 3 Bing. 447.
The statute of frauds does not apply to the dedication of lands to the public ; Godfrey v. City of Alton, 12 Ill. 29, 52 Am. Dec. 476; Rees v. Chicago, 38 Ill. 338; Harding v. Jas per, 14 Cal. 642.
Before acceptance, a dedication may be revoked ; Bridges v. Wyckoff, 67 N. Y. 130 ; San. Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 541; but only when no rights of other persons inter vene. The death of the owner is a revocation
of a proffered dedication of streets, and an acceptance thereafter by the village gives it no right in the streets ; People v. Kellogg, 67 Hun 546, 22 N. Y. Supp.' 490. Where one who has offered to dedicate land a public street, conveys such land before his offer is accepted, the conveyance operates as a revocation of the offer ; Chicago v. Drexel, 141 Ill. 89, 30 N. E. 774 ; Schmitt v. San Francisco, 100 Cal. 302, 34 Pac. 961.
There must be acceptance of either a com mon-law or a statutory dedication, either of which is incomplete without it ; Schmitz v. Village of Germantown, 31 111. App. 284; Vil lage of Grandville v. Jenison, 84 Mich. 54, 47 N. W. 600. The American courts differ to some extent as to whether an acceptance must be more or less formal, by some com petent authority, or may be shown by gen eral public use or indirect official recogni tion or both. The underlying principles are discussed in the leading case of Cincinnati v. White's Lessee, which held that no par ticular form or ceremony of acceptance is es sential, but that "all that is required is the assent of the owner of the land, and the fact of its being used for the public purposes in tended by the appropriation"; Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. (U. ,S.) 431, 8 L. Ed. 452; Da vid's Heirs v. New Orleans, 16 La. Ann. 404, 79 Am. Dec. 586 ; Cole v. Sprowl, 35 Me. 161, 56 Am. Dec. 696; but the acts which amount to it must be plain and unequivocal ; Baker v. Johnston, 21 Mich. 349. It need not be by the town or other municipal corporation, nor need it be very specific, but acts by the public at large are sufficient ; Attorney Gen eral V. Abbott, 154 Mass. 323, 28 N. E. 346, 13 L. R. A. 251; as the construction of sewers through land dedicated .for a street, and filing liens against abutting owners; Philadelphia v. Thomas' Heirs, 152 Pa. 494, 25 All. 873; or general ordinance or resolution accepting all streets and parks dedicated, where land is marked as Such on a recorded plat; Los Angeles v. McCollum, 156 Cal. 148,1.03 Pac. 914 ; or sold under the description of bound ing on a certain street ; City of Eureka v. Armstrong, 83 Cal. 623, 22 Pac. 928, 23 Pac. 1085 ; but the use of a street by the public, to constitute acceptance, must be under a claim of right ; City of Eureka v. Croghan, 81 Cal. 524, 22 Pac. 693.