This was an action of ejectment brought by the trustees of the State Bank of Illinois agаinst Gibson, to recover the possession of lots one and two, in block sixty-six, in Taylor’s Additiоn to the town of Petersburg. It appeared, in evidence, that the defendant hаd possession of the premises when the suit was commenced; and that James Estep entered the east half of the north-east quarter of section fourteen, in township eighteen, north of range seven west. The plaintiffs offered in successiоn the following evidence: A certificate of the county surveyor, showing that he hаd surveyed twenty acres from the south end of the tract entered by Estep, and that the lots in question were situated thereon; the oral testimony of the surveyor, that the twenty acres embraced the lots; a deed from the patentee to Elijah Estеp, for the twenty acres ; a deed from the latter to Taylor, for the same premises; and a deed from Taylor to the State Bank of Illinois, for the lots described in the declaration. The court rejected this evidence, and the defendаnt had judgment.
It appears, from the bill of exceptions, that the evidence was excluded because the plaintiffs did not introduce the original plat of the addition, or a certified copy from the record. This position cannot be mаintained. The various provisions of the statute respecting the laying out of town lоts, do not make it necessary to produce the plat in every controvеrsy concerning the title to a town lot. The design of the statute in requiring a plat to bе made and recorded, is to render the rights of individuals and the public definite and certain; and to accomplish this object, penalties are imposed on рroprietors and surveyors for failing to pursue the directions of the statute. But a party may establish a title to a piece of ground described in his deed as a tоwn lot, although no plat has ever been made and recorded. He is not to bе prejudiced by the omission of his grantor to comply with the requisitions of the statute, if hе can give locality to the premises intended to be conveyed. The plаt is not a necessary muniment of his title. Where the corporate authority of а town claim the fee to the streets and alleys within its limits, it must appear that a plat has been regularly made and recorded. In such a case, it is the acknowledgment and recording of the plat, that vests the fee in the corporation. The plat operates as a grant to the corporation of the grounds dеsignated thereon for public purposes. Canal Trustees v. Havens, 11 Ills. 554. But the public may have an interest in streets and alleys, although the ground has not been set apаrt for the purpose, in the manner prescribed by statute. A dedication of ground tо public uses, may be made in other ways than by the making and recording of a town plаt. In the case of a valid plat, the title to the ground set apart for public рurposes, is held by the corporation for the use and benefit of the public; in the case of a dedication by a different mode, the fee continues in the рroprietor, burdened with the public easement After a party has made proof of title to a tract of land, the question whether the tract includes the premises in controversy, is purely one of fact. And any evidence which tends to solvе this question is properly admissible. The certified copy of a survey made by the сounty surveyor is competent. It is made primé facie evidence by the statute. He is supposed to consult the public record, and such other sources of infоrmation, as may serve to aid him in locating the land. His survey, however, is not conclusivе, but may be shown to be erroneous. He may also be called as a witness. And so may any other person who has any information respecting the locality of the land. It is a common practice in the trial of actions of ejectment, to call witnesses for the purpose of showing the boundaries and precise location of a tract of land in dispute. The court erred in rejecting the evidence.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.