Armstrong

— In this case there was a decision in

Department affirming the judgment. A hearing in Bank was ordered, mainly because a number of cases involving the doctrine of the dedication of streets to the public were either then under advisement or had recently been decided; and it was thought best to again carefully ' compare the case at bar with the others. After further consideration, we are satisfied with the opinion delivered in Department. There is nothing in that opinion inconsistent with People v. Reed, 81 Cal. 70 , or City of Eureka v. Croghan, 81 Cal. 524 . The sale of land described *624 as bounding on a certain street is at least an offer of dedication of the street; and we think, as stated in the opinion of Department Two, that the resolution of the city council was an acceptance before any attempt at revocation.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thornton, J., Fox, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Beatty, C. J., dissented.

The following is the opinion of Department Two above referred to, rendered on the 4tli of December, 1889.—

— This was an action of ejectment brought by the city of Eureka to recover a portion of an alleged street called Twelfth Street, of which the…

I concur in the judgment, and generally in what is said in the opinion, but do not wish to be understood as approving what is said in People v. Reeds referred to in the opinion.

Rehearing denied.