Somersette v. . Stanaland

Adams, J. If the evidence in a case is conflicting the trial judge cannot direct a verdict in favor of the party upon whom rests the burden of proof; but if the facts are admitted or established and only one inference can be drawn from them the judge may “draw the inference and so direct the jury.” Reinhardt v. Ins. Co., 201 N. C., 785. In the .present case the instruction complained of was not in conflict with this rule. Brown’s survey was made 14 October, 1927; his plat shows nine lots laid off and described by metes and bounds; and the road in question is represented as extending across a part of lots one and two and intersecting with the- Grissett crossroad. The defendant received his deeds for these two lots on 25 February, 1928, with knowledge that the road had been located as described. He testified that at the time of his purchase the road appeared on the map. In fact, his deeds refer to the survey and the plat as a part of the description. He testified that the road was then used by the public and had been used for some time; and other witnesses said the road had been accepted by the board of county commissioners. It is an established principle that if the owner of land lays it off into lots with intersecting alleys, streets, or highways, and conveys the lots by reference to the plat, he thereby dedicates such alleys, streets, and highways to the use of the purchasers and of the public, unless it appears that the mention of the alleys,-streets, or highway was intended only for the purpose of description. Conrad v. Land Co., 126 N. C., 776; Bailliere v. Shingle Co., 150 N. C., 627, 636; Green v. Miller, 161 N. C., 25; Wheeler v. Construction Co., 170 N. C., 427; Elizabeth City v. Commander, 176 N. C., 26. The principle may apply to a plat of ground outside, as well as to property within, a town or village; a dedication may he made of a country road or of a city street. 18 O. J., 48, sec. 25; Green v. Miller, swpra. It is not necessary that a plat be registered in order to become a part of the description of the property conveyed. Collins v. Land Co., 128 N. C., 563. The defendant could have compelled the owners of the land who executed the deeds to abide by their dedication of the road. The owners *688 were estopped to deny tbe dedication. We may grant tbat so far as tbe general public is concerned acceptance is requisite to dedication. Wittson v. Dowling, 179 N. 0.* 542; Irwin v. Charlotte, 193 N. C., 109; Gault v. Lalo& Waccamaw, 200 N. 0., 593; Wright v. Lahe Waccamaw, ibid., 616. But bere tbe road bad been accepted and used by tbe public before tbe defendant acquired bis title. Estoppels are mutual, and under tbe facts disclosed by tbe evidence we are of opinion tbat tbe owners of tbe land and tbe defendant are estopped in equity to deny tbat tbe road in question was. dedicated to tbe public use. Upon an inspection of tbe several assignments of error we find no cause for disturbing tbe judgment. No error.