Hamilton v. LaeschHamilton v. Laesch
This is an appeal from an amended final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Floridа, in a foreclosure suit. The mortgage involved contained a clause to the effeсt that the mortgagor was granted the right and privilege to subdivide the mortgaged property into block and lots and upon payment of an amount of $1,150.00 per *592 lot, the same would be released or discharged from the said mortgage lien. The mortgage was dated May 15, 1925, and recordеd in Mortgage Boole 417, page 34, of the public records of Dade County, Florida, on May 18, 1925. It is аdmitted that the mortgaged premises lie within the incorporate limits of the City of Coral Gables, а municipal corporation created and established under Chapter 10418, Special Acts of 1925, Laws of Florida.
The lands described in the mortgage were divided into lots and streets and оtherwise “platted” and said plat was recorded in Plat Book 20 at page 77 of the Public Rеcords of Dade County, Florida. On May 19, 1926, Coral Gables Corporation, the owner of the feе simple title, executed a dedication of plats which were recorded on May 20, 1926, in Deed Book 955 at page 209, Public Records of Dade County, Florida. The pertinent portion of the dedication is, viz.: “Now, therefore, these presents witness, that the said Coral Gables Corрoration, for itself, its successors and assigns, does hereby dedicate all streets, avenuеs, and other thoroughfares shown on said plats, to the free use of the public as such, prоvided that if such use of any part thereof shall or may be discontinued by law, such part shall revеrt to said Coral Gables Corporation, its successors and assigns.” It has not been shown that the City оf Coral Gables, under its charter authority, improved the highways as shown on said plats by the construсtion of hard surfaced streets and concrete sidewalks along said highways at the cost оf the said city. The streets and sidewalks have been kept open to the use of the general public continuously since the alleged dedication thereof. The question for decision is: Is the dedication of land to the public use for streets by a mortgagor a superior right tо a -recorded mortgage lien whereby a provision authorized a subdivision of the mortgaged premises and a release of different units of the sub-.
*593
division from the mortgage upon the payment of the agreed price? It is contended by counsel for appellant that the provision in the mortgage granting the mortgagor the right and privilege to subdivide the mortgaged premises into lots and blocks is such an agreement of dedication to the public use as will releаse or discharge the property so dedicated from the mortgage lien. Counsel cites 8 R. C. L 886; 18 Corpus Juris 46; Boone v. Clark,
To constitute a dedication at cоmmon law there must be an intention on the part of the
proprietor
of the land to dedicate the samе to public use; there must be an acceptance by the public; and the proof of these facts must be clear, satisfactory and unequivocal. See City of Miami v. Florida East Coast R. Co.,
In City of Miami v. Florida East Coast R. Co., supra, at page 549, it was held that a dedication is the setting apart of land for public use, and to constitute it, there must be an intention by the owner clearly indicated by his own words *594 or acts, to dedicate the land to the public use and an acceptance by the public of the dedicatiоn. Likewise a common law plat has no effect as a conveyance.
This Court has rеpeatedly held that in equity as in law every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial court and a decree based largely or solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. See Viser v. Willard,