*1 Phillips Beach Co. v. A. 6642. In Bank.December No. [L. 1922.] FRANK Mrs. A. PHILLIPS, Respondent, Plaintiff Respond AMELIA al., B. KEECH et Interveners ents, Corpora (a v. LAGUNA BEACH COMPANY tion), al., Appellants. et Defendants and [1] Dedication—Property poration.—A resolution of company sold scribed printing cate the provements evidence property by anybody property property has been entered thereon advertisements shall intention. shall be for he dedicated at to fit eos, reserved and time it for Park reserved for minutes purposes constitutes a public hoard of directors of Purposes—Resolution some the erection of declaring and not a statement use constitutes additional the statement park purposes future present offer certain slight and not to dedi or a land Cor im de [2] to be laid off merely parking pose on which the shown Id.—Acceptance by entry an sees offered for dedication for open space automobiles, eating fit property fronted, Opper—Evidence.—An op and use paths which the planted nature. of lunches and since park purposes a flowers, may for acceptance camping purposes, viewing use for but does not it sufficiently the ocean any pur may pais he poses Dedication.—An Id.—Invalidity loan to the trustee on a visit notice of dedication to the acceptance by beneficiary dedicator, offer premises. to Deed of dedication under a deed of trust and no user op Trust—Absence cannot he claimed given of record op for Evidence to secure against appeared pur im op Superior APPEAL from a Court of County. Williams, Judge. R. Y. part, Affirmed in part. reversed opinion facts are stated in
The court. Appellants. & Hahn James S. Bennett and Hahn for Respondent. Plaintiff Harvey John A. Respondents. S. M. Davis for Interveners and Dec, 1922.] appeal judgment.
SHAW, is from C. J.The injunction complaint asking an plaintiff her filed transferring or en- selling, from prevent cumbering comprising tract known the land *2 part defend- “Laguna Cliffs.” of tract the The the selling blocks enjoined from is described as ants 34, comprising ocean 2, lot 37 in the 25, 1, 17 and and block according map frontage the the land of the of Laguna in the recorder’s by Company, the Beach filed made “Laguna designated The contention office, and as Cliffs.” been described had plaintiff of that the land the was public purposes. It is park for dedicated to the use Laguna Company Beach made claimed that the defendant by tract resolution entered formal dedication of the subsequent acceptance their minutes and that awas by public. thereof the Laguna plaintiff 4, block
The is the owner of of 8, lot 5 block Cliffs. The interveners own lot block subdivision, join 17, they in and 18, and lot block prayer complaint in the be en- joined disposing encumbering from selling, Laguna tract which defendant Com- is claimed the Beach pany purposes. dedicated to the for plat April September was on 1906. On
The filed Laguna Company board of directors of the Beach passed a resolution in words: by by “On motion made Merrill and Leonard seconded Thum, Ferdinand it was resolved all south Drive,’ west of marked ‘Cliff and street and the street map ‘Spring Street,’ Laguna marked shown on a Cliffs, Canyon, between the east line and re- Boat shall be park purposes by for and anybody served not sold at south one lies of the south running parallel thereto line, excepting lot 1 of said south and also in Laguna Cliffs.”
[1] This, it is contended, constitutes the proposal to dedi park purposes. They therein for cate the printed advertisements statement frontage been purposes, reserved for entire ocean slight improvements for use, and made some to fit it consisting erecting pavilions, placing steps small and two steep. places regard land We was two this present described, land
resolution as a offer dedicate land not as statement that shall be dedicated some future time. Hence it is sufficient and of itself so far as mere offer acts and is concerned. other decla- course, ration are, additional evidence of the intention to that effect. To make the dedication there must have been ad acceptance
ditional by public. incorporated county Beach was not did pay any matter, attention to the so there no official acceptance. acceptance claimed that was an pais; public accepted by the lots so dedicated going camping premises occupying on the the same using purposes purpose, for that same and also using purposes by making the same other improvements pavilions small other thereon. general think there is sufficient evidence of use finding to sustain the of dedication. There evi- began dence that occupy soon *3 by camping thereon, by parking their and automobiles thereon, eating viewing other vehicles their lunches and ocean, adapted and divers other uses that the pavilions, of a nature. The large, two while not places rest, sit, used as or which eat lunches and improvement An view the association, ocean. number recognized years, kept as a clean papers placed from weeds and waste garbage cans thereon. The use was not constant. Such are uses seldom character, but the use was such as the likely to make such a A dedication. does not planted paths laid off in to be may flowers. open merely space an may any pur- use for pose it fit of a sees nature. Such use was made of land, constantly expected as could be under the circumstances. question
The real much issue how land was included the dedication. not do think the dedication included land as as much is now claimed. Lot 37 of block was description in the resolution, included strip 100 feet wide of block was expressly excepted from the dedication, block 3. following part also lot how the plat shows land claimed to be dedicated is situated parts with relation to the other of the subdivision: Dec. 1922.] *4 Laguna Beach
184 description It will be observed that of the the dedicated includes “all south west the ‘Spring ‘Cliff street marked Drive’ and the street marked ’ ” cannot 37 This be held to include lot Spring 2, northerly for that block Street. was situated Appellants contend that the of the land should line dedicated beyond point Drive” follow the line “Cliff of its Spring point opposite with intersection to where Street sharply easterly Street curves extends being point feet; opposite 519 distance of west- making 21 of block thus land dedicated erly lot end 37 2. include the of block think correct whole of lot We problem is that take solution line should “Spring place south course of the line Street” from the Drive,” immediately opposite “Cliff it intersects with 18 tract, 1 lot of block and continue on line around lot point to will make it connect running parallel “Spring with south line of the. southerly thereof, along Street” and running easterly westerly from the said street of lot end 2. upon fact went lot camped consequence, no since the lots public. never offered to Some claim is made court was maintained tennis lot but the record special that a lease made shows was the tennis to club TIeisler, president company, Mr. and that said ten- pursuance club nis maintained of the lease. We find including no reason in the dedication. The excepted expressly portion: resolution “such Block One lies south of the south line of running parallel thereto feet south line.” This could been intended have been included the dedication. That strip 100-foot there- portion fore must excluded from the of the tract set apart use. Pomona do not College think can be County sustained as Trust and college
Savings Bank. The made a loan secured a deed of trust to the bank for in 1916. The resolu tion of dedication was not recorded and impart title notice record to them a deed from *5 Phillips Laguna 185 Dee. 1922.] v. Frankenfield Laguna Company W. Mabel Beach to “The language: in3, lot block this between guarantees no land first party of that any of private uses lot be sold used and the ocean will or college premises visited A committee bind.” to viewa property with April, 1916, and looked over the en- making unsold lots all the the loan. It included anything indicate They to tire tract. did notice year time dedication that to use. At public use and there any be would little if transac- testimony to the nothing is of the witnesses in the exercising public was any member of tion show that to anything rights occupancy nor was his her at or ground except small use, indicate the two on nothing pavilions steps. them and the As any- they they public use were show that were for or prem- thing private part of the than erections on the other premises, they on which stood. bank not see the ises did in the wholly on record title. The clause but relied subsequent even Frankenfield, if we deed to concede except purchasers 3 27 must other lot lot block except it, personal indicates contract take notice enforce, only could favor of Frankenfield which she appear party is not action. she to the does not any knowledge had There bank the Frankenfield deed. occupying evidence is that the no committee, visit nor the time of the that it ever any part premises impart occupied notice so as College committee, or to Pomona bank. to the to the judgment Consequently must reversed to those defendants. Company, defendant to the Beach
As except judgment affirmed, as to block lot of said “Laguna Cliffs,” except known subdivision, as to lying northerly of said southerly said drawn across running Foster Street and intersection south line of parallel with the excepted part, judg- as to said is reversed.
ment Beach Go. Savings
As to the County Trust and College, Bank and is reversed. Pomona Shurtleff, J., J., Waste, J., Sloan, Wilbur, Lawlor, J., J. Lennon, J., concurred.
The foregoing opinion supreme court modified on December 21, 1922, as follows:
THE following portion COURT.—It is ordered that the judgment hereinbefore rendered this court be stricken out, to except wit: “and as to of Block of said lying northerly aof line drawn across said Block 1, 100 southerly intersection of Poster Street and parallel runing except of Block 3.” Lot judgment find that excepted por- already tion block 1 above described, excepted and it also all of lot 1 unnecessary judg- to reverse the ment as to said land. This leaves the to stand as it is to lot of block 2.
Shaw, J., Lennon, J., C. Waste, J., Wilbur, J., J., Lawlor, and Sloane, J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.
All the Justices concurred.