v. Beaver Borough, 171 Pa. 542, 33 Atl. 112; Baltimore v. Frick, 82 Md. 77, 33 Atl. 435; Meier v. H. Co., 16 Or. 500, 19 Pac. 610, 1 L. R. A. 856. And see 9 L. R. A. 551, note. But that it may so operate at common law there must, be an acceptance by the public in a reasonable time; Village of Grandville v. Jenison, 84 Mich. 54, 47 N. W. 600.
To constitute a common-law dedication by plat requires the same certainty of descrip tion (or accuracy of indication on the plat) as in other forms of conveyance; Sanders v. Village of Riverside, 118 Fed. 720, 55 C. C. A. 240, where it is said that "a dedication is a mode of conveyance." When a plat has been altered before filing so as apparently to cut off one half of the street shovin on it as originally drawn, it operates as a dedication of what remains only; Elliot v. Atlantic City, 149 Fed. 849.
An offer to dedicate, followed by public user under a claim of right, is a sufficient dedication and acceptance ; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. City of Syracuse, 157 Fed. 700; Cook v. Harris, 61 N. Y. 448; Kennedy v. Le Van, 23 Minn. 513 ; Buchanan v. Curtis, 25 Wis. 99, 3 Am. Rep. 23 ; Price v. Town of Breckenridge, 92 Mo. 378, 5 S. W. 20; and where the intention is clear a dedication was held complete without acceptance or user; Point Pleasant Land Co. v. Cranmer, 40 N. J. Eq. 81.
The mere making of a survey or a map of a plat, which is not recorded or exhibited to the public and upon which no lots are sold, is not a dedication of the streets there on ; Kruger v. Constable, 128 Fed. 908, 63 C. C. A. 634 ; and Sling maps on which a street was laid out did not make such a street a public highway so far as the public was concerned; Loughman v. R. Co., 83 App. Div. 629, 81 N. Y. Supp. 1097. But filing the plat in a public repository or publishing it and selling lots by reference to it is a dedi cation; Kruger v. Constable, 116 Fed. 722; and if the lots are sold with reference to a plat showing streets, the purchasers are en titled to have them remain open, whether ac cepted by the public or not ; Village of Au gusta v. Tyner, 197 Ill. 242, 64 N. E. 378; Conrad v. Land Co., 126 N. C. 776, 36 S. K 282 ; and so of a park ; Florida E. C. R. Co.
v. Worley, 49 Fla. 297, 38 South. 618. Where lots are sold bounded on an unopened street, the public has a right to the street, though there was no acceptance or user by the ; Harrington v. City of Manchester, 76 N. H. .347, 82 Atl. 716.
The sale by plat is a dedication; Cum mings v. St. Louis, 90 Mo. 259, 2 S. W. 130; and acceptance is presumed from purchases by various persons ; Carter v. City of Port land, 4 Or. 339; and the plat need not be acknowledged or recorded; Meier v. By.
16 Or. 500, 19 Pac. 610, 1 L. R. A. 856. After a sale by plat there can be no revocation; Brown v. Stark, 83 Cal. 636, 24 Pac. 162. The dedication by plat may apply either to a town site or a small tract. In the former the purchasers and the public are identical, but in the latter there may be an estoppel in favor of purchasers and no acceptance by the public; 9 Harv. L. Rev. 488 ; but the private rights of the purchasers cannot be enforced by the municipality ; Village of Augusta v. Tyner, 197 Ill. 242, 64 N. E. 378. With respect to the rule that the purchaser of lots by plat is entitled to have streets kept open as shown on a plat, a question may arise whether his right applies only to adjoining streets or to all streets on the plat. As to the former his right is unques tioned, and many cases hold it to be clear in the latter class; Collins v. Land Co., 128 N. C. 563, 39 S. E. 21, 83 Am. St. Rep. 720; Wolfe v. Town of Sullivan, 133 Ind. 331, 32 N. E. 1017; Taylor v. Coro., 29 Gratt. (Va.) 780; In re Opening of Pearl St., 111 Pa. 565, 5 Atl. 430 ; contra; 11 Ont. App. 416; Mahler v. Brunder, 92 Wis. 477, 66 N. W. 502, 31 L. R. A. 695 ; Hawley v. Baltimore, 33 Md. 270; Pearson v. Allen, 151 Mass. 79, 23 N. E. 731, 21 Am. St. Rep. 426.
The mere filing of a map purporting to show the original plan of a town, but never authenticated nor proved in any manner to be such, is not sufficient evidence of dedica tion; Terrell v. Town of Bloomfield, 20 S. W. 289, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 577; but the streets of a defective plat may be dedicated to the Public by conveyances made of lots according to the plat ; Smith v. City of St. Paul, 72 Minn. 472, 75 N. W. 708.