But in this country there has grown up what is often referred to as the American doctrine, greatly extending the scope and op eration of the doctrine of dedication under which it is applied equally well to any other purpose which is for the benefit of the pub lic at large, as for a square, a common, a landing, a cemetery, a school, or a monument ; and the principles which govern in all these cases are the same, though they may be somewhat diversified in the application, ac cording as they are invoked for one or anoth er of these objects ; Hunter v. Trustees of Sandy Hill, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 407; Klinkener v. School Directors of McKeesport, 11 Pa. 444 ; Huber v. Gazley, 18 Ohio 18; Langley Town of Gallipolis, 2 Ohio St. 107 ; Mayor,. etc., of the City of Macon v. Franklin, 12 Ga. 239 ; Olcott v. Banfill, 4 N. H. 537 ; Den v. Drummer, 20 N. J. L. 86, 40 Am. Dec. 213 ; Rowan's Ex'rs v. Town of Portland, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 234 ; Ward v. Davis, 3 Sandy. (N. Y.) 502 ; Doe v. Town of Attica, 7 Ind. 641; Gardiner v. Tisdale, 2 Wis. 153, 60 Am. Dec. 407 ; Archer v. Salinas City, 93 Cal. 43, 28 Pac. 839, 16 L. R. A. 145 ; Attorney General v. Abbott, 154 Mass. 323, 28 N. E. 346, 13 L. R. A. 251; Board of Confrs of Miami County v. Wilgus, 42 Kan. 457, 22 Pac. 615; Carpenteria School District v. Heath, 56 Cal. 478 ; Beatty v. Kurtz, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 566, 7 L. Ed. 521; State v. Wilkinson, 2 Vt. 480, 21 Am. Dec. 560 ; Redwood Cem etery Ass'n v. Bandy, 93 Ind. 246; Village of Mankato v. Willard, 13 Minn. 13 (Gil. 1), 97 Am. Dec. 208.
As to cases upon which rests the extension of the doctrine to large parks and cemeteries. see note in 16 Harv. L. Rev. 128.
It is usually said that land dedicated for one purpose .cannot be used for another ; so land dedicated for a public square cannot be used for the erection of a city hall ; Church v. City of Portland, 18 Or. 73, 22 Pac. 528, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 259 and note.
Equity will enjoin the diversion of land from the purpose to which it was dedicated ; Le Clercq v. Trustees of Town of Gallipolis, 7 Ohio, 217, pt. 1, 28 Am. Dec. 641; and the legislature cannot divert it to a different use ; id.; but land dedicated for a specific public use may be used for other purposes reasonably in accord therewith, as modified by changed conditions and circumstances; Codman v. Crocker, 203 Mass. 146, 89 N. E. 177, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980, where an act authorizing a subway under a part of Bos ton Common was held not a diversion of the property foin the purpose of its dedication "for the common use of the inhabitants of Boston as a training field and cow pasture." A promise to donate land for public pur poses has been enforced, as where the prom isee has made improvements ; L. R. 4 Ch. D. 73; Freeman v. Freeman, 43 N. Y. 34, 3 Am. Rep. 657 ; Neale v. Neale, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 19 L. Ed. 590 ; or where a school house was erected on the faith of the promise ; Greenwood v. School Dist. No. 4, 126 Mich.
81, 85 N. W. 241. As the inchoate right of dower is defeated by condemnation of lands to public use ; see EMINENT DOMAIN; it seems to be held that dower is barred by the dedi cation of land to such use ; Venable v. R. Co., 112 Mo. 103, 20 S. W. 493, 18 L. R. A. 68 ; French v. Lord, 69 Me. 537 ; Gwynne v. Cincinnati, 3 Ohio 24, 17 Am. Dec. 576 ; see 18 L. R. A. 79, note.
The doctrine of dedication has been characterized ae an anomaly in our law, due to the public policy of effectuating individual action for public benefit ; 21 Harv. L. Rev. 356. And again, it is said that, so far from being hampered in its application by mere technical distinctions, the doctrine was called into existence for the very purpose of escaping from technical rules and limitations. Its very vital breath and its justification for existence lie in the disregard of existing technical limitations and in recognition of the necessity for a resort to broad views. Consequently, as fast as any new subject or phase of public rights has been presented to the courts, they have never hesitated to apply the doc trine to the new situation ; 16 Harv. L. Rev. 338, where it is urged that it should be extended to rights not merely of using another'e real estate, but of stripping it (or having it stripped) by or for the use of the public of portions of the soil-as of coal or oil ; and it is suggested that on compli ance with certain conditions, viz.: 1. Of leaving the private owners in possession and management (as in the case of a public easement acquired by dedica tion over a private wharf), and, 2. Of paying for the coal or oil as taken, such a dedication might be required by legislation.
A common method of dedicating land for public purposes, particularly in connection with laying out towns, is by recording plats on which are marked streets, public squares and the like, and this is held either by stat ute or, where there is none, at common law, to be a sufficient dedication to the public; City of Madison v. Mayers, 97 Wis. 399, 73 N. W. 43, 40 L. R. A. 635, 65 Am. St. Rep. 127; London & S. F. Bank v. City of Oak land, 90 Fed. 691, 33 C. C. A. 237 ; and such dedication upon a plat acknowledged and recorded of land for county buildings has been held to vest the fee in the county, although the town failed to become the coun ty seat; Brown v. Manning, 6 Ohio, 298, 27 Am. Dec. 255. •So the sale of land by plat designating streets and public squares op erates as a dedication ; Price v. Stratton, 45 Fla. 535, 33 South. 644 ; Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Worley, 49 Fla. 297, 38 South. 618; Corning & Co. v. Woolner, 206 Ill. 190, 69 N. E. 53; Marsh v. Village of Fairbury, 163 Ill. 401, 45 N. E. 236; Van Duyne v. Mfg. Co., 71 N. J. Eq. 375, 64 Atl. 149 ; Weisbrod v. R. Co., 18 Wis. 35, 86 Am. Dec. 743 ; Corn.