5 to justify the verdict of the jury. The trial court submitted all these questions to the jury in what we conceive to be full and proper instructions; and hence the appellant has no cause for complaint. Nor did the court commit error in refusing appellant's other requests. The request that the respondent in view of the circumstances could not reject the rice upon the ground that appellant shipped a quantity in excess of what was ordered was an issue not submitted to the jury. Upon that issue appellant obtained an advantage for the reason that the trial court permitted respondent to refuse acceptance upon the sole ground that the rice was not in accordance with the quality of the sample submitted. The court, therefore, committed no error in refusing this request. Request No. 6, which was likewise refused, contains no propositions of law which were not substantially covered by the court's general charge; and hence the court committed no error in refusing this request. Nor was the appellant prejudiced in the admission of the exhibits complained of. In this connection we remark that the case was fully and fairly tried and appellant was given every right to which it was entitled, and the real issue in the case, namely, as to whether the acts of the re spondent in handling the rice constituted an acceptance of it, and whether the respondent had the right to reject it on the ground of a defect in quality, were fairly submitted to the jury in terms that men of ordinary intelligence could not fail to comprehend. 6 From a careful inspection of the record we can discover no prejudicial error. The judgment, therefore, ought to be, and is accordingly affirmed, with costs to respondent. STRAUP, C. J., and MCCARTY, J., concur. SOWADZKI v. SALT LAKE COUNTY. No. 2003. Decided June 11, 1909 (104 Pac. 117). 1. DEDICATION-PLATTING LAND OUTSIDE MUNICIPALITY. Act March 13, 1890 (Laws 1890, p. 76, c. 50), authorizing the owner of any land to lay out and plat it into lots, streets, alleys, and public places, and providing for dedication of the public places, applies as well to land outside, as to that within, incorporated cities and towns. (Page 133.) 2. DEDICATION-NECESSITY OF ACCEPTANCE. Under Act March 13, 1890 (Laws 1890, p. 77, c. 50), section 4, providing that a plat of land when made, acknowledged, filed, and recorded shall be a dedication of all the streets and public places shown thereon, the dedication is complete without a formal acceptance by the public authorities. (Page 133.) 3. DEDICATION—ABANDONMENT-COUNTY ROADS. Comp. Laws 1907, section 1116, which, after providing that all highways once established continue to be such till abandoned by order of county commissioners, by operation of law, or by judgment, provides that a road not used or worked for five years ceases to be a highway, while applying only to county roads, and not to municipal streets, applies to such a road as well when dedicated by a plat as when otherwise established. (Page 141.) 4. DEDICATION—ABANDONMENT-LIMITED FEE. Under Act March 13, 1890 (Laws 1890, p. 77, c. 50), section 4, providing that a plat of land, when recorded, shall be a dedication of the streets and public places, and sufficient to vest the "fee" of such parcels of land as are therein expressed, named, or intended for public uses for the public for the uses therein named or intended, the fee passing is only to the surface, and this only for public use for all purposes of a highway, and so is limited or determinable fee, created for a special purpose only, and hence subject to abandonment. (Page 142.) 5. EASEMENTS-ABANDONMENT OF HIGHWAY-EFFECT ON PRIVATE RIGHTS. Abandonment of a highway under Comp. Laws 1907, section 1116, by not working or using it for five years, while preventing the opening of it by public authorities, does not affect any rights of individuals therein acquired by purchase of lots according to the plat which dedicated it. (Page 143.) APPEAL from District Court, Third District; Hon. C. W. Morse, Judge. Action by Paule Sowadzki against Salt Lake County. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS. M. E. Wilson and E. A. Walton for appellant. O. W. Carlson and Stephens, Smith & Porter for respond ent. APPELLANT'S POINTS. Under the law in force in the Territory of Utah, at the time of the alleged dedication, to-wit, October 30, 1891, there was no statutory authority for filing the alleged plat, because the land described in said plat and comprised within the limits of the so-called Wabash Avenue was situated outside of the limits of any city, town or village. See volume 1, p. 287, sec. 146, Utah Compiled Laws 1888. See Laws of 1890, pp. 76, 77, chapter 50; Laws of 1894, pp. 1-14. A common law dedication is not alleged in the counterclaim of the de fendant. A defective statutory dedication would give to the public an easement only. (City of Leadville v. Colorado Mining Company, 86 Pac. 1035.) The dedication, even if made, was not accepted by the public, and more than a reasonable time having elapsed, prior to 1907, an acceptance at that time would be null and void and without legal effect. (Elliott on Roads and Streets, sec. 150; Wilson v. Hall, 7 Utah 90; Hayward v. Manser, 70 Cal. 476, 13 Pac. 141; People v. Read, 81 Cal. 70, 22 Pac. 474; Niles v. Los Angeles City, 125 Cal. 572, 58 Pac. 190.) The dedication claimed in the counterclaim of the defendant fails because of the plaintiff's defense of abandonment. (Sec. 2070, Utah Comp. Laws 1888, pp. 738, 739; Olien v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, 25 Colo. 177, 53 Pac. 454; City of Leadville v. Bohm Mining Company, 86 Pac. 1038; Meyers v. Daubeniss, 23 Pac. 1027, 84 Cal. 1; Murphy v. King Coun ty, 88 Pac. 1115 [Wash.].) Salt Lake County is estopped from claiming a highway. (Thorp v. Clanton, 85 Pac. 1061; Jones on Easements, sec. 241; Schooling v. City of Harrisburg, 71 Pac. 605, 42 Ore. 494; Peoria v. Central Nat. Bank, 224 Ill. 43, 79 N. E. 296, 12 L. R. A. [N. S.] 687; Oliver v. Synhorst, 86 Pac. 376, 7 L. R. A. [N. S.] 243; Laws of Utah 1899, p. 55, sec. 1.) RESPONDENT'S POINTS. Respondent cited the following authorities. As to acceptance: Meier v. Portland C. Ry. Co., 19 Pac. 610 (Ore.): City of Osage v. Larkins, 19 Pac. 659 (Kans.); Augusta v. Tyner, 197 Ill. 242, 64 N. E. 378; Briel v. Natchez, 48 Miss. 423; 13 Cyc., pp. 455, 457, 458; Baldwin v. City of Buffalo, 35 N. Y. 384; Shea v. City of Ottumwa, 24 N. W. 582 (Iowa); Town of San Leandro v. Le Breton, 13 Pac 407 (Cal.); Fulton v. Town of Dover, 6 Atl. 633 (Del.): Coffin et al. v. City of Portland, 27 Fed. 412 (Ore.); Grogan v. Town of Hayward, 4 Fed. 164, 165 (Cal.); So. Rep., vol. 5, pp. 622, 623 (Miss.); Land Co. v. Mayor, etc., 36 N. J. Law 540; Dummer v. Jersey City, 20 N. J. Law 86; Mayor, etc., v. Canal Co., 12 N. J. Eq. 533; Irwin v. Dix ion, 9 How. 10; Trustees v. Cowen, 4 Paige 510; Hannibal v. Draper, 15 Mo. 639; In re Seventeenth St., 1 Wend. 266; In re Lewis St., 2 Went. 472; Wyman v. Mayor, etc., 11 Wend. 486; Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood, 6 N. E. Rep. 870; Zearing v. Raber, 74 Ill. 409; Elliott on Roads and Streets, pp. 86, 87, 89; Hoboken Land Co. v. Hoboken, 36 N. J. L. 540; Shea v. The City of Ottumwa, 67 Iowa 39. As to estoppel: Sims v. Frankfort, 79 Ind. 446; Ralston v. Weston, 46 W. Va. 544, 33 S. E. 326; Webb v. Demopolis, 95 Ala. 116, 21 L. R. A. 62; Elliott on Roads and Streets, p. 884. 36 Utah-9 FRICK, J. Appellant brought this action to restrain the respondent, its officers and agents, from interfering with her property. In July, 1890, one Dankowski was the owner of a five-acre tract of land lying south of the city of Salt Lake in Salt Lake county. After surveying and dividing said tract into lots, said Dankowski made a plat thereof, and, after having the same certified to by the county surveyor and approved by the probate judge, duly acknowledged and filed the same for record in the office of the county recorder of Salt Lake County. The land aforesaid was surveyed, platted, and a plat thereof filed, under the provisions of a certain act approved March 13, 1890. The act (Laws 1890, p. 76, c. 50), in substance, provides: Section 1: That any owner of any land may "lay out and plat such land into lots, streets, alleys and public places." By section two it is provided that an accurate map or plat of the lots shall be made showing the boundaries of all parcels of land so platted, and stating what portions thereof are intended for avenues, streets, lanes, alleys, commons, or other uses. Section 3 requires such plat to be acknowledged by the owner of the land and certified to by the surveyor making the plat, and that it be filed and recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county wherein the land is situate. Section four is as follows: "Such maps and plats when made, acknowledged, filed and recorded with the county recorder shall be a dedication of all such avenues, streets, lanes, alleys, commons or other public places or blocks, and sufficient to vest the fee of such parcels of land as are therein expressed, named or intended for public uses for the inhabitants of such town and for the public for the uses therein named, or intended." The last section of the act provides a penalty for selling any lots within any town or addition before the provisions heretofore stated have been complied with. In another act it is provided that, before filing, the plat must be approved by the authorities of the city or town in which the land is located, and, in the absence of any such authorities, by the probate judge of the county wherein the land is situate. The strip of land platted as aforesaid |