Whether a corporation may dedicate land to a public use is a question not extensively discussed. It seems to be permitted when the dedication is for a use consistent with the object for which the charter is granted; Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood, 118 Ill. 61, 6 N. E. 866.; Mayor, etc., of Jersey City v. Banking Co., 12 N. J. Eq. 547; but not otherwise; Stacy v. Hotel & Springs Co., 223 Ill. 546, 79 N. E. 133, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 966;and note; and a railroad may, by dedi cation, establish a street or road across its tracks; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. City of Spokane, 64 Fed. 506, 12 C. C. A. 246; Green v. Town of Canaan, 29 Conn. 157 ; Southern Pac. Co. v. City of Pomona, 144 Cal. 339, 77 Pac. 929; Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. City of Bayonne, 52 N. J. L. 503, 20 Atl. 69. A- trustee of a town site located on public land (under U. S. R. S. § 2387) has no right to dedicate land for a street as against the individual occupants for whom he takes ti tle; McCloskey v. Pacific Coast Co., 160 Fed. 794, 87 C. C. A. 568, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 673.
Reservations, conditions and restrictions are in some cases sustained, the courts some times going to great lengths; Hughes v. Bing ham, 135 N. Y. 347, 32 N. E. 78, 17 L. R. A. 454: 11 M. & W. 827; Bayard v. Hargrove, 45 Ga. 342; City of Morrison v. Hinkson, 87 Ill. 587, 29 Am. Rep. 77; Warren v. City of Grand Haven, 30 Mich. 24 ; Rutherford v. Taylor, 38 Mo. 315; but the growing ten dency is to hold the condition void; Trustees of M. E. Church of Hoboken v. City of Hoboken, 33 N. J. L. 13, 97 Am. Dec. 696 ; 5 Q. B. 26. The limitation may be sufficient to defeat the dedication by showing an ab sence of the animus dedicandi; White v. Bradley, 66 Me. 254; so the reservation of a right to revoke and devote the land to oth er uses was held not a good dedication ; City of San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 541. See 21 Harv. L. Rev. 356, where cases on restrictions and conditions are discussed.
See STREET; HIGHWAY; PARK ; BRIDGE, and a general note in 27 Am. Dec. 559.