iana sllch an order wOllld not be made j under the practice of the courts of chancery such an order would be made. 3 Daniell, Ch. Pro lSI\} et seq.; Jeremy, Eq. Jur. 254. It is not necessary to show that the fund is ,in danger, but merely that the plaintiff is solely entitled, or has such an interest jointly with others as to justify him on behalf of himself and them to have the fund 8ecured. In all equity causes the chancery rules are followed to the exclusion of state practice. In Bein v. Heath, 12 How. 178, TANEY, O. J., says: "The proceeding in a circuit court of the United States is regulated by the laws of congress, and the rules of this court made under the authority of an act of congress." This case holds that even by a rule of the circuit court the equity practice cannot be departed from. 'l'he conelusion, therefore, is that the equity practice is to govern, and that that practice requires the court, that all parties who can by possibility have an interest in the fund, except a fraction of the defend· fendant, unite in the application, the court ought not to refuse to order the deposit because the stakeholder, who is the agent of the defenaant, also resists. The order will therefore be entered.
COFFIN and others
PORTLAND and another.
1rlay 12, 1886.)
(Ci'fcuit Court, D. Oregon.
LEVEE-DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE.
A dedication of real property to public use as a levee or landing on the bank of a navigable water implies and vests in the public a right to use the same without a grantee being- named or in existence; and it rests with the legislature, as the representative of the public, to regulate such use. and to promote the same by improving the premises directly. or through the agency of the municipal corporation within whose limits the same are situated or otherwise.
SA1fE-AcCEPTANCE AND CONTINUANCE OF.
No formal acceptance of such dedication is necessary; .nor does the existence of such easement depend on the extent of the use or improvement of the premises, or that they are used or improved at all. In 1850 the occupants of the Portland land claim dedicated a strip of ground on the river, within the limits of the town they had laid out thereon, as a public levee. and so designated it on the plat of the survey. Held, that the intent and understanding was to dedicate the property to public use as a landing place for the use of water-craft, and the transfer of freight and passen· gers to and from the river.
SAME-DEDICATION FOR A "PUBLIC LEVEE."
SAME-POWER OF TIlE STATE OVER DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USES.
The state may regulate the use of and improve the public landing, and authorize the collection of tolls for the maintenance of wharves and warehouses thereon, but it has no interest in the property, and cannot devote or subject it to any use clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the dedication. and if it undertakes to do so, the property is not affected by the act, nor will it thereby revert to the donor or his heirs.
COFFIN V. CITY OF PORTLAND. .
G. SAME-AcT OF 1885, CONCERNING THE LEVEE. The act of 1885, (Bess. Laws, 100,) construed to give the Portland & Wallamet Valley Railway Company the right to use and improve the public levee as a public landing, by the construction of wharves, warehouses, and terminal railway facilities thereon for the public use.
Suit in Equity to Declare and Enforce a Resulting Trust.
J. G. Chapman, for plaintiffs. A. H. Tanner, for City of Portland. Charles J. Macdougall, for Portland & W. V. Ry. Co. ,
J. This suit is brought by the plaintiffs to have declared and enforced a resulting trust in a parcel of land in Portland known as the "Public Levee." The case was heard on a demurrer to the bill on the grounds of a want of equity therein and of jurisdiction in the court. From the bill it appears that the plaintiffs are of Oregon, and the defendants are corporations existing under the laws of Oregon, -the one a municipal and the other a private corporation; that prior to September 27, 1850, Stephen Coffin, D. H. Lownsdale, and W. W. Chapman were in the occupation, as partners, of a tract of land containing about 640 acres, situate on the west bank of the Wallamet river, including said public levee, and then known as the "Portland Land Claim;" that prior to said date said occupants caused said claim to be laid off in lots and blocks, streets, public squares, and places, including a public levee on the bank of the river between the east line of Water street and low-water mark, and extending southerly from the south line of Jefferson street about 520 feet, and about 150 feet in width at the north end, and 350 feet at the south end, and a map thereof to be made, commonly known as the "Brady Map," and then and thereby dedicated said levee to the public, and for more than 20 years thereafter jointly and severally sold and conveyed lots in the town of Portland by said map; that on March 10, 1852, said occupants, in order to comply with the donation act of September 27, 1850, and hecome settlers thereunder, divided said claim between themselves, whereby said levee was included in the donation of Stephen Coffin, who, during the year 1854, received a patent certificate for the same, upon which a patent was afterwards issued to him by the United States; that at the time of said division said occnpants covenanted with each other as follows: "That he will fulfill and perform all contracts and agreements which he has heretofore entered into with the others, or with each of them, or with other persons, respecting the said tract of land, or any part thereof;" that said Coffin continued to recognize said dedication, and between the issuing of said patent certificate and January 23, 1865, sold and conveyed lots within his donation by said Brady map; that the inhabitants of Portland were incorporated by the act of January 23, 1851. and have ever since existed as a mnnicipal corporation by that name, and the common council thereof, on April 29, 1852, adopted said