Cited by

805, 806-07 (Minn. 1918); -04 (Minn. 1892).

It is true that “acquiescence, without objection, in the public use for a long time, is such conduct as proves and indicates to the public an intention to dedicate.” Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381, 385 , 53 N.W.

* * * Under our decisions, only ‘long-continued, uninterrupted use by the public’ (Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381, 385 , ) need be proved to establish the owner’s acquiescence from which the intention to dedicate is inferred.” 4 Where the purpose for which the dedication is made is restricted, *341 the dedicated property must be used for the purpose for which it was dedicated.

Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , .

Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , ; Carpenter v. Gantzer, 164 Minn. 105 , ; Metalak v. Rasmussen, 184 Minn. 260 , ; Dickinson v. Ruble, 211 Minn. 373 , 1 N. W. (2d) 373 ; Keiter v. Berge, 219 Minn. 374 , 18 N. W. (2d) 35 .

Plaintiff admits, as he must, that “acquiescence, without objection, in the public use for a long time, is such conduct as proves and indicates to the public an intention to dedicate.” Klenk v. *375 Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381, 385 , ; Boye v. City of Albert Lea, 93 Minn. 121 , ; Carpenter v. Gantzer, 164 Minn. 105 , .

pends is not put upon a grant by deed (compare Jungels v. Schramel, 158 Minn. 93 , ) nor upon adverse possession, but solely upon a common law dedication, that is, a “use of the land, with the assent of the owner, for such a length of time that the public accommodation and private rights might be materially affected by the interruption of the enjoyment.” Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381, 485 , .

Paul, 83 Minn. 401 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , ; Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Case v. Favier, 32 Minn. 48 (89); Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

In Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381, 384 , , the distinction was clearly made betAveen the acquisition of a public highway by a common-law dedication, which rests upon the intention of the landowner and acceptance by the public, and by adverse use under the statute, Avhich was held in effect a short statute of limitations prescribing a time

ether he has actual notice of the disseisin or not, or be barred.” In Marchand v. Town of Maple Grove, 48 Minn. 271 , , the statute is declared to be “a *453 statute of limitations, in effect, predicated and only justifiable upon a claim of actual adverse possession, occupation, and improvement for the period of six continuous years.” It was also held in Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , , Chief Justice Gilfillan speaking for the court, that “the statute referred to is somewhat in the

Paul, 12 Minn. 116 (192); Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Ellsworth v. Lord, 40 Minn. 337 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , ; Hansen v. Town of Verdi, 83 Minn. 44 , .

Paul, 12 Minn. 116 (192); Case v. Favier, 12 Minn. 48 (89); Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , .