City of Uvalde v. Stovall, 279 S.W. 889 (Tex. Civ.App.-San Antonio 1925, writ ref'd) involved a vehicle that crashed into an open excavation. When sued, the city denied liability claiming the road was not a public road because it had never "accepted" the roadway. The case does not discuss how or in what manner the street was dedicated. In fact, the case seems to suggest that the road was acquired by condemnation. Id. Viscardi v. Pajestka, 576 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. 1978), involved a dispute about the status of an alleyway. In that case, a bank deeded portions of a block to separate individuals. One of the deeds included a dedication of an alley between the two lots. The jury concluded the bank intended its dedication of the alley to be a public dedication; thus, the alley could be used by both landowners. The supreme court affirmed the jury's finding, but its decision was based upon evidence of the grantor's intent, not a legal maxim requiring all such dedications to be public. The court found the use of the phrases "has dedicated" and "does dedicate" to be only some evidence of intent. The Court also relied on extraneous evidence such as subsequent deeds and the inaction of individual owners.