12-401. Cities of second and third classes and towns; abstracts; form and contents of plat; approval by county or city attorney. Before any proprietor or proprietors of any proposed city of the second or third class or of any town, or of any proposed addition to any such city or town shall record the plat of such proposed city, town or addition, he or she shall furnish to the county attorney of the county in which such proposed city or town is located, or the city attorney and governing body in case of a proposed addition, an abstract of title and the plat to the land which is to be incorporated into such city, town or addition. Such county attorney, in case of any proposed city or town, or such city attorney and governing body in case of a proposed addition, after examination duly made, shall approve or disapprove said plat. Such city attorney, and governing body in case of any proposed addition to any town or city may require the streets and alleys, therein shown, to be as wide as, and to be conterminous with, the streets and alleys, of that part of the city or town to which it adjoins.
The plat shall accurately and particularly set forth and describe: First, all the parcels of ground within such city or town or addition reserved for public purposes, by their boundaries, course and extent whether they be intended for avenues, streets, lanes, alleys, commons, parks or other uses; and, second, all lots intended for sale, by numbers, and their precise length and width.
History: G.S. 1868, ch. 78, § 1; L. 1915, ch. 149, § 1; L. 1921, ch. 139, § 1; February 23; R.S. 1923, § 12-401.
Attorney General's Opinions:
Maps and plats sufficient to vest title in lands conveyed for public use. 84-83.
Use of land dedicated to public use by private nonprofit organizations. 1999-49.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Dedication of land for public use; property held in trust. Comm'rs of Franklin Co. v. Lathrop, 9 Kan. 453.
2. Interest of private owners in land dedicated to public considered. Comm'rs of Franklin Co. v. Lathrop, 9 Kan. 453.
3. Acceptance by municipality; land must be used for purpose dedicated. Comm'rs of Franklin Co. v. Lathrop, 9 Kan. 453.
4. Dedication to public use; very slight testimony will sustain dedication. Giles v. Ortman, 11 Kan. 59.
5. Conveyance of lot by dedicator conveys all his interest therein. Tousley v. Galena M.& S. Co., 24 Kan. 328.
6. If dedicator may reserve any interest, it passes to grantee. Tousley v. Galena M.& S. Co., 24 Kan. 328.
7. Rule of common law in force save as modified hereby. Tousley v. Galena M.& S. Co., 24 Kan. 328.
8. Vacated portion of street passes with conveyance of lot. A.T.& S.F. Rld. Co. v. Patch, 28 Kan. 470, 473.
9. Blocks designated and numbered on plat considered same as lots. Hapgood v. Morten, 28 Kan. 764.
10. Method prescribed by legislature controls; other methods of no effect. Sullivan v. Davis, 29 Kan. 28.
11. Owner not estopped by knowledge that map is being circulated. Sullivan v. Davis, 29 Kan. 28, 33.
12. Land not platted; attempted annexation to city held invalid. City of Topeka v. Gillett, 32 Kan. 431, 438, 4 P. 800.
13. Attempted reservations by dedicator held invalid and of no effect. Wood v. National Waterworks Co., 33 Kan. 590, 7 P. 233.
14. Fee vests in county; use by city for public purpose. Wood v. National Waterworks Co., 33 Kan. 590, 7 P. 233.
15. No designation on plat; land not considered public street. Fisher v. Carpenter, 36 Kan. 184, 12 P. 941.
16. Construction of words written on plat; construed against donor. Hitchcock v. City of Oberlin, 46 Kan. 90, 26 P. 466; Arnold v. Weiker, 55 Kan. 510, 516, 40 P. 901.
17. Dedication of tract as "levee"; may be used as street. McAlpine v. Railway Co., 68 Kan. 207, 75 P. 73.
18. Abandonment insufficient to cause reverter. McAlpine v. Railway Co., 68 Kan. 207, 75 P. 73.
19. Conditions under which misuse or nonuse causes reverter considered. McAlpine v. Railway Co., 68 Kan. 207, 75 P. 73.
20. Deed describing lot as "in Jones' addition" held valid conveyance. Fitzpatrick v. Crowther, 100 Kan. 355, 358, 164 P. 300.
21. Reference to record plat; no guarantee of dimensions of lot. Fitzpatrick v. Crowther, 100 Kan. 355, 358, 164 P. 300.
22. Proper description of lot by recorded plat considered. Fitzpatrick v. Crowther, 100 Kan. 355, 358, 164 P. 300.
23. Levee and streets dedicated; fee vested in county in trust. Douglas County v. City of Lawrence, 102 Kan. 656, 171 P. 610.
24. Control vested in city cannot be divested by city. Douglas County v. City of Lawrence, 102 Kan. 656, 171 P. 610.
25. Control of levees and streets; nonuse; laches; adverse possession. Douglas County v. City of Lawrence, 102 Kan. 656, 171 P. 610.
26. Plats operate as conveyances of streets and alleys. Hammond v. City of Ottawa, 127 Kan. 874, 275 P. 141.
27. Fee vests in county; city controls; reverter upon vacation. Miller-Carey Drilling Co. v. Shaffer, 144 Kan. 508, 514, 61 P.2d 1320.
28. Rules for construing map or plat stated and applied. City of Russell v. Russell County B.&L. Ass'n, 154 Kan. 154, 158, 118 P.2d 121.
29. Dedication of property as public park considered; construction of parking lot on such land prohibited. Cooper v. City of Great Bend, 200 Kan. 590, 594, 438 P.2d 102.
30. County clerk's subdivision was platted and filed according to law; through 54 years of usage took on attributes of subdivision according to law; meets specifications of being platted within statute. State, ex rel., City of Edgerton, 201 Kan. 274, 279, 440 P.2d 540.
31. Conditional dedication of property for public use not accepted; dedicator entitled to just compensation for taking. City of Kechi v. Decker, 230 Kan. 315, 318, 634 P.2d 1099 (1981).
|
|