*1 EVANSTON, Wyoming, a CITY OF municipal Wyoming corporation, (Defendant),
Appellant corporation; Company, a
Cities Service Company, corpo- a
Amoco Production
ration; Company, Petroleum a Mesa Burton/Hawks, Inc., corporation; and Randolph; corporation; Rex L. Steve Poindexter; Champlin; R.
C. Downs Sklar; Grady Vaughn; Albert R.K. Resources, O’Connell; Inc.; Rainbow Resources, Inc.; Energies,
Terra EMC Inc.; Schulte; L. Frank Horizon Oil & Co.; Dixon; Husky Gas R. William Oil Co.; Casper, Interstate Bank of First Hawks; Burton, N.A.; Jr.; Guy Bill Bill Farleigh; Exploration
D. Williams (Defendants), Company,
v.
George L. J. Rob- ROBINSON Sarah inson, wife; Kilburn husband Por- Porter, ter and Nellie Evaline husband (Plaintiffs). wife, Appellees
Burton/Hawks, Inc., corporation; Rex Randolph; Champlin;
L. Steve C. R. Poindexter; Vaughn; Grady Downs Al- Sklar; O’Connell; R.K.
bert Rainbow Inc.; Resources, Resources, Inc.; Terra Inc.; Schulte; Energies, L. EMC Frank Co.; &
Horizon Oil Gas William R. Dixon; Co.; Husky Oil First Interstate N.A.; Casper, Hawks; Guy Bank of Bill
Burton, Jr.; Farleigh; Bill D. and Wil- Exploration Appel- Company,
liams (Defendants),
lants EVANSTON, Wyo- Wyoming, a
CITY OF municipal corporation;
ming Cities Ser- corporation; Company, a Amoco
vice corporation; Company, a
Production corpora- Company, Petroleum
Mesa (Defendants),
tion,
George L. ROBINSON and Sarah J. Rob- inson, wife; Kilburn Por- husband Porter,
ter and Nellie Evaline husband (Plaintiffs). wife, Appellees
Nos. 84-87.
Supreme Wyoming. Court of
July *2 Phillips, Lancaster of Lancas-
Dennis W. Evanston, Thomas, P.C., appel- ter & No. 84-86. lant Case Richard G. Williams and L. Wil- Houston Williams, Porter, Neville, Day & liams of P.C., Casper, appellants in Case No. 84-87. Evanston, Phillips, Frank D. J.
Charles Utah, Allen, City, appellees. Salt Lake C.J.*, ROSE, THOMAS, Before CARDINE, ROONEY**, JJ. BROWN ROSE, Justice. single appeals present a issue for
These
review:
City of Evanston have such
“Does the
right,
or interest
the streets
City to
as will allow the
gas
covering
grant a valid oil and
lease
*
**
arguments.
January
Chief Justice at time of oral
Became Chief
Justice
“I,
underlying
Morse,
the oil and
the streets
Martin V
being
owner of
alleys?”
the land
described and
annexed,
shown on the
hereto
do
by proper-
a class action
ease arose as
same
name the
as M.V. Morse’s Fourth
Evanston,
seeking
ty
Wyoming,
owners in
Evanston,
Addition
the Town of
oil, gas
a declaration of the
Wyoming.
State of
I do hereby
And
other minerals
the streets and
*3
alleys
dedicate the streets and
as shown
alleys abutting
lots.
their
The district
public
plat
on said
to the
use.”
City
court
that
the
ac-
determined
had
Property owners within these subdivi-
quired
rights
no
interest in the minerals
or
judicial
sought
sions
declaration of the
aas
result of the dedication of the streets
the
to
minerals
the
alleys
public
Accordingly,
and
use.
alleys
streets and
and brought this class
summary judgment deny-
the court entered
against
City
Evanston;
action
the
of
Bur-
ing
the underlying
the claims to
minerals
ton/Hawks,
Inc.,
City’s
gas
the
oil and
lessee,
by
City,
asserted
its mineral
and
the
lessee;
assignees
various
of Bur-
assignees.
the lessee’s
We will affirm.
ton/Hawks; and
Company,
Cities Service
Amoco
Company
Production
and Mesa Pe-
FACTS
Company, operators charged
troleum
with
class
this
Members of the
involved in
proceeds
the
of
distribution
from the sale
litigation
original
property in the
own
gas.
of the oil and
The
court en-
district
Town
or in subsequently
of Evanston
de-
summary judgment, declaring
tered
veloped
origi-
plat
The
“
subdivisions.
* * *
City
Defendant
of Evans-
August 19,
nal town was recorded
(except
through
ton does
as it claims
specified
were
the
areas
dedicated to
conveyances other than the dedications
public use:
alleys
by
of streets and
affected
the ac-
"I,
Dodge, being Agent
M.
Grenville
knowledgement
filing
plats)
and/or
of
Trustee for the Union Pacific Railroad
own oil and
minerals
other
un-
lands,
Co. as
the
prem-
owner of
lots and
derlying
alleys abutting
streets and
lots
ises
shown
described and
on the fore-
members
by
owned
of the Class.”
going plat
designate
do
and name the The district court did not determine the
Evanston,
Town of
the
dedicate
extent,
any,
property
if
owners’
Streets, Alleys,
grounds
and Public
minerals,
rights in the
directed the
but
therefor
on
shown
Said Plat to the
54(b),
entry
pursuant
Rule
judgment
of
to
use.”
W.R.C.P.,
Burton/Hawks,
City,
so
assignees
No
of
governed
filing
the effect
Burton/Hawks could
of
the
plat
appeals
this
dedicating
perfect
or
immediate
court.1
alleys
streets and
at the
original
time that
the
town
estab-
was
OF
TO
DEDICATION
PROPERTY
lished.
THE PUBLIC USE
plats
The
of the other
all
subdivisions
Law Dedication
Streets and
Common
involved
this case were filed between
Alleys
subject
are
and 1950 and
to the Plat-
Act,
ting
original
and Dedication
34-12-101
Town
When
§§
through
through
August,
34-
was filed in
Evanston
plats
Territory Wyoming
These
or
W.S.1977.
included
had no laws
effect
had
concerning
platting
attached
dedication similar
of subdivisions or
example:
following
property.
dedication
territorial
brief,
judgment
appellant
declaratory
1. In its
of Evanston raises
and will not be addressed
questions concerning
by
property
titles
this court.
owners’
obligations
pay
indicated,
minerals and their
purposes of
Unless otherwise
property taxes on the minerals.
"appellants”
appellants
These matters
opinion
refers to
pertain
single
by
do not
issue decided
No. 84-86 and Case No. 84-87.
both Case
repealed
by
agree
had
all laws enacted
legislature
We cannot
that the addition
Territory
might
phrase
enlarges
Dakota which
have
“to the
use”
question
ownership
By
under a
effect of a common-law dedication.
affected the
definition,
Chapter
Wyo-
property
dedication of
is an
dedication.
Laws of the
expression of the owner’s intent to
ming Territory,
Consequently,
devote
property
use:
governs
common law
dedication of
“ * * *
Gay
original plat.
streets
generally
dedication is
de-
[A]
Wyoming Automotive
Johnson’s
Service
fined as the devotion of
to a
Co.,
Cheyenne, Wyo.,
Inc. v.
unequivocal
use
act of the
owner, manifesting
P.2d 787
an intention that
accepted
shall be
presently
and used
held that dedication of
We have
in the future. The intention of the own-
at common law creates
acceptance
er to dedicate and
thereof
an easement:
are the essential elements of a
“ * * *
*4
complete dedication. Thus it is vital to a
law,
common
at dedication
Under
property
dedication
public
to
use that
municipality acquires
public
the
or
an
it is to be forever and irrevocable after
alleys,
easement
in the streets and
but
acceptance, and that
public
be for a
original proprietor
the fee remains in the
McQuillin,
33.02,
Corp
use.” 11
Mun
Gay
Wy-
Johnson’s
abutting
owner.”
(3rd ed.).
p. 636
Co.,
oming Automotive Service
Inc.
“ * * * Dedication
City
Cheyenne, supra, 367 P.2d at
ap-
is the intentional
propriation
of land
the owner to some
proper public use. The intention of the
City’s
The
interest under a common-law
owner to set aside lands or
for
dedication is sufficient to accommodate the
public
the use of the
is the foundation
public
property by
use of the
the
for street
every
and life of
dedication.
[Citation.]”
City
purposes,
acquires
and related
but the
City
Phoenix v. Landrum & Mills
underlying
no interest
in the minerals
the
Co.,
382,
Realty
1011,
71 Ariz.
227 P.2d
Mining
streets. Leadville v. Coronado
(1951).
1013
Co.,
234,
(1906);
Lam
P.
37 Colo.
86
1034
Rhodes,
508,
See also Hand v.
125 Colo.
Mason, 368 Ill.
41,
bach v.
53 N.E.2d
601
292,
Tiffany,
4
The
(1944).
(3rd
Property,
p.
Law of Real
Appellants
dedicatory
contend
1975).
ed.
language
original
associated with the
town
dedicatory language
The
attached to
plat
enough
is
to
broad
overcome this com-
* *
original
plat
of the
Town of Evanston
phrase
mon-law rule. The
“dedicate[d]
simply expresses the owner’s intent to de
use,”
public
according
appellants,
alleys
vote the delineated streets and
indicates that the dedicator intended to con-
use,
compliance with the
elements
vey
the street
for
areas
more
uses
dedication. Under the
of a lawful
law of
example,
than
streets alone. For
Territory Wyoming applicable
at the
right
lay
utility
has the
sewer
lines
time,
only
transferred
such dedication
streets, appellants
beneath the surfaces of
Gay
Wyoming
Johnson’s
Au
easement.
Co.,
Ruby Drilling
point
Inc. v.
out. See
Co.,
City Chey
Inc. v.
tomotive Service
(1983).
Billingsly, Wyo.,
“The
is
a street
nal town
Section
W.S.
no means
confined
surface
substantially
of the Act has remained
way,
apart
who set
for a
this all
land
adoption
provides:
since
same
its
conclusively presumed
street are
acknowledgment
recording
“The
‘
means
know.
“Street”
more than
equivalent
plat,
such
a deed in
fee
surface; it
the whole
means
surface
of such
is,
be,
depth
as much of the
or can
platted
apart
as is on such
set
used,
unfairly,
pur-
ordinary
for the
use,
or other
or is thereon
*5
pose
depth
comprises
of a street.
It
a
charitable, religious
to
dedicated
or edu-
authority
which
the
to
authorizes
urban
purposes.”
cational
street,
every
do that
is done in
which
Appellants contend that
under
street,
namely,
the
lay
to raise
down
City
simple
the
received a fee
determinable
for,
present day
at the
can
there
sewers—
alleys,
in
which
dedicated
inter-
sewers,
be no street in town
a
without
right
underlying
est
the
to the
includes
and,
right
at least
to
the
construct them—
long
City
for so
minerals
as the
uses the
also,
for
purpose
laying
the
of
down
support
In
property
ways.2
of
therefore,
“Street,”
pipes.
and water
in-
position, appellants
Belgum
their
cite
v.
cludes the
the
surface
so much of
Kimball,
774,
City
163
81 N.W.2d
Neb.
depth
may
unfairly
as
be used
of
205,
We hold
the
obstructing
town,
from
original
City
property
of the
the
owner
of Evanston
acquired
in
found no error in the court’s
no interest
street and
minerals under
lying
alleys,
opera-
judgment
by
declaratory
its streets and
either
(1965),
by
proprietors
Appellants
acquired
the interest
P.2d
and "the
lots
describe
557
2.
determinable,”
City
simple
may
as a "fee
since
so vacated
public grounds adjoining
enclose the
equal propor-
City
upon
the
vacation,
lots in
loses all
to the
Laramie,
Payne
Wyo.,
W.S.1977.
v.
398
tions." Section
“ * * *
simple
meaning
the fee
title to all of
In
section.
the initial
[t]hat
* * *
Avenue,
Harvey
opinion it was
in
said
substance that the
together with all
within such Sub-
force of the statute was to divest the
* * *
Plat,
as shown
said
division
proprietor
premises
of the title to the
set
belongs
and such fee
to the
aside for the street and to vest the same
hereby
public,
confirmed in the
title is
public.
In essence that is the view
alleys.”
street and
use as such
this court
took of that
in Tissi
P.2d at 109.
Mavrakis,
560,
Wyo.
no v.
recently,
More
examined the terms of
we
106,
opinion
In
any
neither
was
they
city’s right
on a
the statute as
bear
thing
concerning
vesting
said
of title
vacate and sell land dedicated as a street.
However,
municipality.
in a
the Iowa
statutory language
that the
effect-
We said
opinion
court’s
as to
streets went on
municipality
conveyance
ed a
of a
point out,
at 24 Iowa
public:
in
trust for the benefit
gave
statute nevertheless
to the munici
“ * * *
precise ques-
answer to the
[I]n
pality
power
‘the fullest
and control over
submitted,
tion
we have no alternative
same,
title,
which can arise
from
but to hold that the interest the defend-
improvement
order that all
of them as
city acquired
ant
in the above-described
highways might be made without let or
premises as a result of the dedication
any quarter.’
hindrance from
Then on
existing statutory provi-
under
then
rehearing the court went further.
It
was,
best,
sions
at
a title in trust for the
statutory
was then said that
dedication
public, granting
city
right
provisions
under the
637 did vest a
hold, use, occupy,
enjoy
simple’
‘fee
title to the streets in the
use as a street. Once that
But,
then,
municipality.
even
the Iowa
right
pursu-
was terminated
vacation
go
court did not
as far as we are asked
authority delegated
city by
ant to
go.
pointed
dissent,
As
out
at
legislature
city
longer
any
no
had
majority
24 Iowa
conceded the
premises.
title or interest
It has
possibility of reverter in case the streets
nothing
convey.” Payne
to sell or to
should be vacated and conceded ‘that the
Laramie,
Wyo., 398 P.2d
city
any part
could not sell the streets or
*6
of them.’ With these limitations it is
reaching
In
this conclusion
relied
we
on the
Iowa,
apparent that
at
time
our stat
Supreme
discussion
in
Iowa
Court
adopted,
ute
did not hold
was
Hall,
supra,
opin-
Des Moines v.
an
language employed
simple
a fee
vested
existing
ion
adopted
at the time that we
municipali
absolute to the streets in the
platting
our
from
in
in
statutes
those
effect
Instead,
ty.
the interest received was
Iowa:
loosely
what
is sometimes rather
de
matter,
considering
“In
it
fitting
is
base,
qualified,
scribed as a
or determin
go
that we
to the source
first
able fee.
tion
in
benefit. We
Iowa
Court The
Hall,
abutting property
lacked sufficient
Des Moines v.
24 Iowa
owners
upon
roadway
was called
to construe the
interest in a dedicated
to maintain
trespass
‘convey good
the installation of
issued it shall
a
for
and suffi-
an action
patentee
cient title to the
therein named
line within the street area.
a water
simple,
in fee
is said that the use
.
Notwithstanding
foregoing cases
simple’
of the words ‘in fee
establishes
characterizing
public’s
interest as a ti-
that the title to said land when sold must
public use as such street and al-
tle “for
necessarily include all the minerals below
hold, use,
right
occupy,
“the
leys” or
the surface thereof.”
that when a
guage
“Stress
of
is laid
section
patent
by
91-513,
relator
[3]
state,
upon
quoted
lands
the lan
above,
is
the transferred estate
der
pra
n.
§
34-12-104
at issue in State ex rel. Cross v.
than under
is even
§
stronger
91-513,
un-
su-
W.R.S.1931,
good
patentee
provided
part:
title to the
Section
in
and sufficient
simple."
therein named in fee
land,
purchaser
any
“Whenever the
state
assigns,
complied
his
has
with all the condi-
given their
in a statute must be
4. Words used
article,
paid
pur-
tions of this
and has
all the
ordinary meaning
plain
unless otherwise
therefor,
money
together
chase
with the law-
Stagner Wyoming
State Tax Com-
indicated.
thereon,
patent
mission,
ful interest
he shall receive a
Wyoming
Wyo.,
P.2d 326
682
* * *
purchased.
patent
Barber, Wyo.,
for the land
Such
Department
Education v.
State
aforesaid,
signed
convey
and executed as
shall
commissioners of state-owned ROONEY, J., specially concurring filed a character, in only refers to land opinion. having an ex- the sense of its indefinite ROONEY, Justice, specially concurring. from the upward tent and downward sur- face, always and therefore includes disagree I do not with that said in the may upon it and whatever be erected majority opinion, but note that some of the may directly be under it. The whatever quoted pertains law and cited therein course, may meaning word have that ownership of the streets and and of circumstances, but it does under some rights pertaining the mineral thereto after always not have it. Reason and context alleys. vacation of the streets and We are play important part determining its ownership here concerned with of the min- significance.” P.2d at 429. true rights eral when there has been no vaca- alleys. therefore, tion of the streets and hold, that the
We
oil,
acquired
no interest
Evanston
judgment
I also note that
gas or other minerals
its streets
court,
affirmed, recognizes
herein
district
recording
as a result of the
ownership
of the mineral
acknowledgment
plats pur
of subdivision
parties
in none of the
hereto but is in the
suant to 34-12-104. We note that courts
assigns.
dedicators or their successors and
legis
jurisdictions
interpreted
in other
have
changed
estate cannot be
without
Such
corresponding
lation
pertinent
proper conveyance or under
stat-
Cleveland,
similar fashion. Mochel v.
51 utory provisions. Although
directly
ad-
(1930) (under
Idaho
Leadville v. Bohn (under
pra,
vests in the the fee of the
streets, alleys designated places, and other city acquired complete, perpetual, “a space designated
and continuous title to the long so as it used them for the
purpose intended”). We decline to follow by appellants
those cases cited to us
as we
Utah,
(1970);
City,
Ogden City,
Lake
Sears v.