Printable Format12-406. Maps and plats sufficient to vest title of lands conveyed for public use in city; effect of recordation. Such maps and plats of such cities and towns, and additions, made, acknowledged, certified, filed and recorded with the register, shall be a sufficient conveyance to vest the fee of such parcels of land as are therein expressed, named or intended for public uses in the city, in trust and for the uses therein named, expressed or intended, and for no other use or purpose. The recording of such map or plat shall not constitute a conveyance of any interest in the oil, gas and other minerals underlying the avenues, streets, lanes, alleys and other parcels therein named or intended for public uses. The provisions of this act shall apply to all maps or plats, heretofore or hereafter made, acknowledged, certified, filed and recorded with any such register. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting any right to enter upon the surface of such parcels of land for purposes of exploring for or the extraction of such minerals, or in any other manner to interfere with the public uses named in such maps, plats and additions.
History: G.S. 1868, ch. 78, § 6; R.S. 1923, § 12-406; L. 1958, ch. 6, § 1 (Special Session); L. 1984, ch. 65, § 1; July 1.
Attorney General's Opinions:
City land for park purposes; sales or exchanges. 83-146.
Maps and plats sufficient to vest title in lands conveyed for public use. 84-83.
Valuing property — public property used for private purposes. 88-109.
Property exempt from taxation; dedication to public use. 91-25.
Use of land dedicated to public use by private nonprofit organizations. 1999-49.
Utility easement is not a public right-of-way. 2003-28.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Fee vests in county; county holds property for public use. Harden v. Metz, 10 Kan. App. 341, 58 P. 281.
2. Injunction not available to prevent opening of properly dedicated street. Harden v. Metz, 10 Kan. App. 341, 58 P. 281.
3. Dedication as "courthouse square"; sale by municipality not authorized. Comm'rs of Franklin Co. v. Lathrop, 9 Kan. 453.
4. Dedication conveys land for use therein mentioned and no other. Comm'rs of Franklin Co. v. Lathrop, 9 Kan. 453.
5. Trust created by dedication; enforcement by adjacent property owners. Comm'rs of Franklin Co. v. Lathrop, 9 Kan. 453.
6. Fee of streets vested in county, not in abutting lot owners. A.& N. Rld. Co. v. Garside, 10 Kan. 552, 564.
7. City has power to regulate use of street by railroad. A.& N. Rld. Co. v. Garside, 10 Kan. 552, 565.
8. Use of street by railroad; liability to lot owners considered. A.& N. Rld. Co. v. Garside, 10 Kan. 552, 565.
9. Common law in force except as modified by statute. Tousley v. Galena M.&S. Co., 24 Kan. 328.
10. Reservations by dedicator; conveyance by him conveys all his interest. Tousley v. Galena M.&S. Co., 24 Kan. 328.
11. Dedication as "church lots" held proper dedication for pious purposes. Comm'rs of Wyandotte Co. v. Presbyterian Church, 30 Kan. 620, 1 P. 109.
12. Proof of claim by church to "church lots" considered. Comm'rs of Wyandotte Co. v. Presbyterian Church, 30 Kan. 620, 1 P. 109.
13. Attempted restriction on use of streets held inoperative and void. Wood v. National Waterworks Co., 33 Kan. 590, 7 P. 233.
14. Use of streets for laying of water mains considered. Wood v. National Waterworks Co., 33 Kan. 590, 7 P. 233.
15. Statute must be complied with before plat operates as grant. Brooks v. City of Topeka, 34 Kan. 277, 8 P. 392.
16. Only the owner or authorized agent may make binding dedication. Brooks v. City of Topeka, 34 Kan. 277, 8 P. 392.
17. Intention of dedicator governs; ascertained from plat; evidence. Brooks v. City of Topeka, 34 Kan. 277, 8 P. 392.
18. Land not marked as street cannot be considered so dedicated. Fisher v. Carpenter, 36 Kan. 184, 12 P. 941.
19. Land not owned by dedicator not affected by plat thereof. Armstrong v. City of Topeka, 36 Kan. 432, 13 P. 843.
20. City government entitled to control and possession of public park. Hurd v. Comm'rs of Harvey Co., 40 Kan. 92, 19 P. 325.
21. County commissioners cannot bring action to recover possession of city park. Hurd v. Comm'rs of Harvey Co., 40 Kan. 92, 19 P. 325.
22. Alleys dedicated to public; no further action necessary to open. Osage City v. Larkin, 40 Kan. 206, 19 P. 658.
23. Alley retains its character as such even though practically impassable. Osage City v. Larkin, 40 Kan. 206, 19 P. 658.
24. Vacation of land dedicated as street; right to question validity. Arnold v. Weiker, 55 Kan. 510, 516, 40 P. 901.
25. All requirements must be met to constitute statutory dedication. Garfield Township v. Herman, 66 Kan. 256, 71 P. 517.
26. Dedication complete; formal acceptance or use by public not necessary. Gadarl v. City of Humboldt, 87 Kan. 41, 123, P. 764.
27. Appropriation of street by private individual; no title required. Gadarl v. City of Humboldt, 87 Kan. 41, 42, 123 P. 764.
28. Title vested in county in trust for public use forever. City of Hutchinson v. Danley, 88 Kan. 437, 439, 129 P. 163.
29. Wife of dedicator need not acknowledge plat; plat valid. Phillips v. Interurban Railway Co., 89 Kan. 835, 839, 133 P. 429.
30. Statute vests authority in city; title in county. City of Emporia v. Humphrey, 132 Kan. 682, 686, 297 P. 712.
31. Fee vests in county; city controls; reverter upon vacation. Miller-Carey Drilling Co. v. Shaffer, 144 Kan. 508, 514, 61 P.2d 1320.
32. Rules for construing map or plat stated and applied. City of Russell v. Russell County B.&L. Ass'n, 154 Kan. 154, 159, 118 P.2d 121.
33. Cited in discussing city's liability for injuries caused by defective sidewalk. Smith v. City of Coffeyville, 166 Kan. 586, 588, 203 P.2d 215.
34. Fee to city streets in county but city authorized to improve them. State, ex rel., v. City of Garnett, 177 Kan. 709, 711, 281 P.2d 1085.
35. 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.
36. Attempted reservation of interest in adjoining streets prior to vacation; ineffective; not defect in title. J & S Building Co. v. Columbian Title & Trust Co., 1 Kan. App. 2d 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 239, 563 P.2d 1086.
37. 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).