Chichester v. Kroman
In Chichester v. Kroman, 221 Ala. 203, 128 So. 166 (1930) the Court examined 10361, Code of Alabama (1924), as amended by Acts 1927, p. 105, a predecessor to Title 56, 32. In that case, the Court described the factual issues presented as follows:
"Did all the 'owners of the land abutting the street or alley (or that portion of the street or alley desired to be vacated)' join 'in a written instrument declaring the same to be vacated,' properly acknowledged and recorded, and did the city give its assent, 'evidenced by a resolution adopted by such governing body, a copy of which, certified by the clerk or ministerial officer in charge of the records of the municipality attached to, filed and recorded with the written declaration of vacation,' and was a 'convenient means of ingress and egress to and from this property afforded' by any other street or alley?" 221 Ala. at 206, 128 So. at 168.
In other words, if the landowners joined in a written declaration of vacation, to which the city assented, and the public had another means of ingress and egress, no more was required before the road could be vacated. The question before the Court in Chichester was whether a convenient means of ingress and egress to the complainant's property was otherwise afforded.