sumed. Thayer v. McGee, 20 Mich. 195. The action of a board of county supervisors in acquiring real property will be presumed to be for a legitimate purpose and authorized by law.

Mitchell v. City of Negaunee, 113 Mich. 359, 38 L. R. A. 157; James v. Wilder, 25 Minn. 305; Sheidley v. Lynch, 95 Mo. 487, 8 S. W. 434. A county has the implied power to purchase the necessary land for the erection of a court house and the amount or quantity is discretionary with the public authorities.

Kansas City v. Bacon, 147 Mo. 259, 48 S. W. 860; Linville v. Bohanan, 60 Mo. 554; City of Jefferson v. Curry, 71 Mo. 85. The city of Jefferson can buy land sold for nonpayment of taxes due the city under Mo. Acts 1872, p. 390, § 1. Morse v. Granite County Com'rs, 19 Mont. 450, 48 Pac. 745; Stewart v. Otoe County, 2 Neb. 177; Jewett v. Town of Alton, 7 N. H. 253; Curtis v. City of Portsmouth, 67 N. H. 506; Jersey City v. Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, 53 N. J. Law, 531, 22 Atl. 343. A resolution to purchase by the board of freeholders may be set aside because of an excessive price to be paid.

Winkler v. Summers, 51 Hun, 636, 5 N. Y. Supp. 723. Where a city council has arranged for the purchase of a school house site at a price much in excess of its value they can be enjoined, under N. Y. Laws 1887, c. 673, which authorizes such a writ at the instance of taxpayers to prevent the officers of a municipality from wasting the public funds under their control.

Ketchum v. City of Buffalo, 14

N. Y. (4 Kern.) 356; Peterson v. City of New York, 17 N. Y. 449; People v. Earle, 47 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 368; Barker v. Town of Floyd, 32 Misc. 474, 66 N. Y. Supp. 216. The mere possession of a tract of land under contract of purchase is insufficient to validate it where otherwise unauthorized.

Beckrich v. City of North Tonawanda, 171 N. Y. 292, 64 N. E. 6; State v. Darke County Auditor, 43 Ohio St. 311; Avery v. Job, 25 Or. 512, 36 Pac. 293. The action, although discretionary, of a city council in contracting for the purchase of waterworks at an extravagant price and inadequate for the purpose will be enjoined at the suit of taxpayers. Culpeper Sup'rs v. Gorrell, 20 Grat. (Va.) 484. The discretionary action of county supervisors in the exercise of an authorized power for the purchase of land will not be inquired into in a collateral proceeding.

Lidgerwood Park Waterworks Co. v. City of Spokane, 19 Wash. 365; Potter v. Black, 15 Wash. 186, 45 Pac. 787. The city of Whatcom under its charter (Laws 1883, p. 150) has power to purchase land at a tax sale for delinquent street grade taxes. Konrad v. Rogers, 70 Wis. 492, 36 N. W. 261. But see Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 496 (Gil. 441). A county has no right to purchase lands at an execution sale upon the judgment obtained under official bond of a defaulting county treasurer under a statute authorizing it to purchase lands "for public uses." See, however, the later case of Shepard v. Murray County, 33 Minn. 519, which holds

an

42

to the contrary under the authority granted in Gen. St. 1866, c. 8, § 75. See, also, 31 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 277, note, citing authorities upon the proposition that a municipal corporation cannot, in the absence of statutory authority, purchase lots at a tax sale.

41 Halbut v. Forest City, 34 Ark. 246; City of Chicago v. Peck, 196 III. 260, 63 N. E. 711. A lease irregularly executed but for an authorized purpose will be considered as the contract of the city and not a lease of the mayor.

Brown County Com'rs v. Barnett, 14 Kan. 627. The judgment of county commissioners as to the unfitness or insufficiency of buildings made by the county for county purposes will not be reviewed by the courts and leases for such purposes will, therefore, be held valid. Williams v. Kearny County Com'rs, 61 Kan. 708, 60 Pac. 1046; City of Somerville v. City of Waltham, 170 Mass. 160; Gardner v. Dakota County Com'rs, 21 Minn. 33; Aull v. City of Lexington, 18 Mo. 401. A city board of health may rent a building to be used as a hospital for cholera patients.

Fitton v. Inhabitants of Hamilton City, 6 Nev. 196; Curtis v. City of Portsmouth, 67 N. H. 506. The

powers granted by Pub. St. c. 40, § 4, to cities, to provide public libraries, reading rooms and memorial buildings may be exercised through the lease of suitable accommodations as well as by the purchase of real property and the erection of buildings.

Ford v. City of New York, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 587. The lease to be valid must be made in compliance with all the requirements of the law. Witt v. City of New York, 29 Super. Ct. (6 Rob.) 441; Holder v. City of Yonkers, 39 App. Div. 1, 56 N. Y. Supp. 912; Gushee v. City of New York, 26 Misc. 287, 56 N. Y. Supp. 1002; Davies v. City of New York, 83 N. Y. 207; Wade v. City of New Bern, 77 N. C. 460; Multnomah v. City & Suburban R. Co., 34 Or. 93, 55 Pac. 441; Barnett v. Ashmore, 5 Wash. 163, 31 Pac. 466; Gilman v. City of Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 563. A city may lease land for temporary use as a street under a charter which authorizes it to acquire real and personal property sufficient for the convenience of the inhabitants. But see City of Mobile v. Moog, 53 Ala. 561. The power to lease must be expressly given.

42 Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. (U. S.) 127; Budd v. Budd, 59 Fed. 735. A devise of land for a public

43

park may be accepted where it is accompanied with the provision for the payment of an annuity to the donor for life. United States v. Case Library, 98 Fed. 512; Handley v. Palmer (C. C. A.) 103 Fed. 39; Beebe's Heirs v. City of Little Rock, 68 Ark. 39. 56 S. W 791; Yosemite S. & T. Co. v. Dunn, 83 Cal. 264, 23 Pac. 369; Delaney v. City of Salina, 34 Kan. 532; Fulbright v. Perry County, 145 Mo. 432, 46 S. W. 955; Lester v. City of Jackson, 69 Miss. 887. A devise of lands to a city for a public park is valid though they lie outside the city limits.

Morse v. Granite County Com'rs, 19 Mont. 450; Sargent v. Cornish, 54 N. H. 18. The bequest of a sum of money is valid, the income of which is to be used yearly in the purchase and use for display of United States flags. Coggeshall v. Pelton, 7 Johns Ch. (N. Y.) 292. A legacy is valid to a town for the purpose of erecting a town house for the transaction of public busi

ness.

In re Crane's Will, 159 N. Y. 557, 54 N. E. 1089, affirming 12 App. Div. 271, 42 N. Y. Supp. 904. By statute and also by the common law the city of New York may acquire personal and real property by be quest. Christy v. Ashtabula County Com'rs, 41 Ohio St. 711; Raley v. Umatilla County, 15 Or. 172, 13 Pac. 890; Attorney General v. City of Providence, 8 R. I. 8; McIntosh v.

City of Charleston, 45 S. C. 584, 23 S. E. 943; Bell County v. Alexander, 22 Tex. 350. A county may take a devise of lands for educational purposes or for the support of the poor.

Beurhaus v. Cole, 94 Wis. 617, 69 N. W. 986. A municipality under Rev. St., §§ 931, 1499, can acquire lands by devise for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a public library and a home for the aged and poor. See, also, authorities cited under §§ 719 et seq., ante.

43 Ecroyd v. Coggeshall, 21 R. I. 1, 41 Atl. 260. A grantor of real property to a municipality is charged with knowledge of its want of authority to accept a deed limiting the use of land.

44 Beatty v. Kurtz, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 566. The dedication of land "for the Lutheran church" is valid under the bill of rights of Mary. land though German Lutherans were not incorporated and no trustees were appointed to take the legal title to the land. Redwood Cemetery Ass'n v. Bandy, 93 Ind. 246. Land may be dedicated to the public use as a cemetery. Chris tian Church v. Scholte, 2 Iowa, 27; Patrick v. Y. M. C. A. of Kalamazoo, 120 Mich. 185, 79 N. W. 208; Humphrey v. Whitney, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 158. Land devised to a town for the use "of the ministry" may be appropriated to the support of several ministers within the town.

45 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. City of Spokane (C. C. A.) 64 Fed. 506; Doe ex dem Kennedy's Ex'rs v. Jones, 11 Ala. 63; Mayo v. Wood, 50 Cal. 171. "A deed which conveys to the present and future owners of town lots in a city, certain streets and public squares in such city for the public use of the inhabitants of such city, to be applied to such public purposes as the future incorporated authorities of said city from time to time declare and determine' dedicates the land to a public use, and contains a sufficient designation of the grantees to make it operative as a conveyance."

Hoadley v. City & County of San Francisco, 50 Cal. 265. An act of the legislature ratifying and affirming a void municipal ordinance providing for the laying out of public squares on pueblo lands within its limits operates as a selection and dedication of the squares to a public use and no other or further acceptance by the public is needed to make the dedication complete.

City of Hartford v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 59 Conn. 250, 22 Atl. 37; Coe College v. City of Cedar Rapids (Iowa) 87 N. W. 444. The fact that a strip of land as a street is merely a cul de sac, if other conditions are sufficient, will not defeat a dedication. Busse v. Town of Central Covington, 19 Ky. L. R. 157, 38 S. W. 865, 39 S. W. 848.

Southern R. Co. v. Standiford, 21 Ky. L. R. 1023, 53 S. W. 668. There cannot be a dedication of land to a private use and, therefore, a private individual or a cor

poration cannot acquire title to land by dedication. See the following cases as holding the same: Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Whitham, 155 Ill. 514, 40 N. E. 1014, 2 L. R. A. 612; Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co. v. Stephens, 16 Ky. L. R. 552, 22 S. W. 14; Watson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 46 Minn. 321, 48 N. W. 1129; Minneapolis Mill. Co. v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 46 Minn. 330, 48 N. W. 1132; Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of Hoboken, 33 N. J. Law, 13.

McNeil v. City of Boston, 178 Mass. 326, 59 N. E. 810. An entrance into a public building cannot become a public way by dedication since its use by the public is permissive only on the part of the public authorities and may be stopped at any time.

Peninsula Iron Co. v. Crystal Falls Tp., 60 Mich. 510, 27 N. W. 666; Vick v. City of Vicksburg, 1 Miss. (1 Walk.) 379. The interests of those beneficially entitled to easements on grants of a public or charitable nature will not be permitted to fail for want of a person to take a legal title.

Moses v. St. Louis Sectional Dock Co., 84 Mo. 242. The commencement of proceedings to condemn will not defeat a prior and valid dedication. Todd v. Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co., 19 Ohio St. 514. The public and not merely a public corporation must be the chief beneficiary of a dedication which is an appropriation of lands to a public use.

Spencer v. Peterson, 41 Or. 257, 68 Pac. 519. In a civil case where

46

the dedication of a road is a question at issue, a preponderance of evidence is all that is necessary.

Klinkener v. School Directors of McKeesport, 11 Pa. 444; Baird v. Rice, 63 Pa. 489; State v. Robinson, 12 Wash. 491, 41 Pac. 844. The establishment of a highway by statutory dedication is not an exclusive method. See, also, cases cited under the two preceding notes.

46 City of New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 662. It is not necessary that a public corporation be incorporated in order that property may be dedicated to a public use within its limits. Webb v. City of Demopolis (Ala.) 13 So. 289; City & County of San Francisco v. Calderwood, 31 Cal. 585; Town of Derby v. Alling, 40 Conn. 410; City of Macon v. Franklin, 12 Ga. 239. A municipal corporation may make a valid dedication of land belonging to it. Warren v. Town of Jacksonville, 15 Ill. 236. The public is an ever existing grantee capable of taking dedications for public uses and its interests are of sufficient consideration to support them.

Davenport V. Buffington (Ind. T.) 45 S. W. 128; Bumpus v. Miller, 4 Mich. 159; McGinnis v. City of St. Louis, 157 Mo. 191, 57 S. W. 755. The prohibition in the city

charter against the improvement or repair of a street not required according to the provisions of the charter and law does not prohibit it from acquiring the use of a street by common-law dedication.

Hertford Com'rs v. Winslow, 71 N. C. 150; Taylor v. Commonwealth, 29 Grat. (Va.) 780. An interesting case giving the history of the establishment of highways and streets by dedication. See, also, note 32 Am. Eng. Corp. Cas. 49-87.

47 City of Los Angeles v. Kysor, 125 Cal. 463; Welton v. Town of Wolcott, 50 Conn. 259; Phipps v. State, 7 Blackf, (Ind.) 512. No presumption of dedication of uncultivated land of the United States for a highway can be raised from its use as such. Smith v. City of St. Paul, 72 Minn. 472; City of Buffalo v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.. 68 App. Div. 488, 74 N. Y. Supp. 343. The acquiescence by owners of real property in certain municipal regulations will not constitute a dedication. In re Hunter, 164 N. Y. 365, 58 N. E. 288. Denying rehearing 57 N. E. 735. A mode of dedication established by statute is not exclusive. Ferdinando v. City of Scranton, 190 Pa. 321, 42 Atl. 692; Bates v. City of Beloit, 103 Wis. 90; Elliott, Roads & St. § 112.