dissenting.
The majority opinion in this matter is in error in more than one respect. However, it does recognize, properly, that a grant must be construed as a whole and effect given to the plain and unambiguous language contained therein; and that if such is ambiguous, the intent of the parties can be ascertained from surrounding circumstances. Dawson v. Meike, Wyo., 508 P.2d 15 (1973); First National Bank and Trust Company v. Finkbiner, Wyo., 416 P.2d 224 (1966).
In this case, the language of the subdivision instruments and of the deeds to subdivision lots is plain and unambiguous in reflecting (1) that the roads in the subdivisions which constitute the North Fork River Homesites (hereinafter referred to as home-sites) are dedicated to public use, including the use by appellants, and (2) that appellees are not the real parties in interest with reference to contesting the use of homesite roads. Further, if there is any ambiguity in such instruments and deeds, the only proper evidence and the application of the accepted rules of construction establish (1) the intent of the parties to dedicate all of the roads in the homesites to public use, including the use by appellants, and (2) the intent of the parties to divest appellees of that control of the roads necessary to make them real parties in interest in this case. Finally, the uncontroverted facts in this case are such as to dictate a conclusion (1) that the homesite roads are for public use, including the use by appellants; (2) that appellees are not the real parties in interest with reference to an action to determine the nature of the use by appellants of the roads in homesites; and (3) that the injunction issued in this case is improper.
IF AMBIGUOUS
Before establishing that the same conclusion results when the unambiguous and plain language of the subdivision instruments and deeds is applied to the issues here presented, I note that the circumstances surrounding this matter emphatically reflect that the intent of the parties to the subdivision instruments and to the deeds to the lots of the subdivision was to make the homesites roads connecting appellants’ land with the BLM land and the highway subject to public use, including the use by appellants. Indeed, so completely is such intention manifested, the corollary follows that appellees do not have sufficient individual interest in the roads to qualify as real parties in interest and to maintain this action.
The following sketch, which is in more detail than that in the majority opinion, is helpful in understanding the sequence in which the several subdivisions became part of homesites and the effect thereof on the status of the roads from the several subdivisions to the highway.
*803
Access to homesites from the highway is from the south. However, the subdivisions in homesites were developed from the north to the south. Thus, after subdivision 1 was established, access to it must have been through the area in which subsequently established subdivisions were to be — probably over the trails which appellants testified were used to gain access to their property from a time dating back to near the turn of the century.1 The map of homesites attached by appellees to the complaint re-*804fleets a trail through the area, labeled an “old trail” and noting its location to be approximate. Such access to subdivision 1 must have been intended by appellants when they developed subdivision 1.
Appellees acknowledge that the roads in subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 were dedicated to the public use after these three subdivisions were established. The public would have had to traverse land in some of the yet to be established subdivisions to reach the dedicated streets from the highway — again probably traversing the trails reflected on the map attached by appellees to their complaint. When appellees later developed roads which connected roads in subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 to the highway, the obvious intention was for use of such developed roads for public access between the highway and the roads in subdivisions 1, 2, and 3, which were dedicated to, and intended to be used by the public.
A further expression of this intention is in the fact that the roads in the later developed subdivisions did not dead-end at the boundaries of subdivision 3. Rather they met the roads in subdivision 3 which had been dedicated to the public.
One who subdivides his property and dedicates roads therein to the use of the public must certainly intend such roads to be used by the public. When the only access to the roads is over other trails or roads on his property, his intent is just as certainly that such access be used by the public.
Whether or not the roads in the south portion of homesites (south of subdivision 3) were dedicated or not, and whether or not they were on subdivided land, their location and termini with relation to the dedicated roads in subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 were such to manifest an intent to provide access between the highway to such dedicated roads.
All of the circumstances surrounding the homesite development establish the intention to promote access over homesite roads from the highway to the dedicated roads in subdivisions 1, 2, and 3. From that and from the language in the deeds from appel-lees to those purchasing lots in homesites 2 not only is such intention further fortified but the lack of sufficient interest in the subject matter by appellees to maintain this action is indicated. Such language reflects an intention by appellees to construct the roads in homesites after which control over them shall be in the purchasers of the subdivision lots.
There is nothing in the record to indicate a contrary intent. The majority opinion points to testimony by appellee William A. Sanders to the effect that “his intent had always been to keep the roads private” as determinative. Not only is such testimony suspect as self-serving, but it is contrary to the intention expressed by his acts.
“ * * * The motive for dedication, however, is immaterial, and, if the owner’s intent was that the land dedicated should be used by the public generally, such an intent will be allowed its proper and pertinent force, although the principal motive might have been to oblige and accommodate an individual.
“The intention to dedicate to which courts give heed is not an intention hidden in the mind of the landowner, but an intention manifested by his acts. It is not always necessary that an actual intention should exist in the mind of the owner at the time of the alleged dedication. If the intention is clearly expressed by his open acts and visible conduct, the public and individual citizens may act on it; and the fact that the owner may have entertained a different intention from that manifested by his acts or declarations, or that in making the dedication he may have acted under a mistake of fact, is of no consequence; and if the owner showed an intent he cannot defeat the effect of his acts by subsequently stating that he did not intend to make a dedication." (Emphasis added.) 26 C.J.S. Dedication, § 11, pp. 418-419.
*805“ * * * Ambiguity justifying extraneous evidence is not generated by the subsequent disagreement of the parties concerning its meaning. [Citation.]” Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463, 465 (1980).
The motive of appellees in attempting to preclude use of the roads by the three appellants is not indicated. The testimony reflects many people other than lot owners in homesites use the roads. Appellees’ motive in not precluding use by such other people is likewise not in the record.
There was testimony that appellants could exit their property by use of Rainbow Valley Road to the west. However, the testimony was that such road was closed by snow for all of the winter months. Testimony was to the effect that appellants had heavy snow removal equipment, and they could probably open Rainbow Valley Road with it if the snow came when they were on the premises where the equipment was available.
If there is ambiguity in the subdivision instruments and deeds, the intention as reflected in the surrounding circumstance was to provide access to the public, including appellants, between the highway and subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 by means of the other roads in homesites. Further, such instruments and deeds reflect the intention to divest appellees of that control of the roads in homesites necessary to give appellees the status of real parties in interest.
IF UNAMBIGUOUS
In fact, the subdivision plats are plain and unambiguous in designating the roads thereon to be for public access. Such factual determination is conclusive. As already noted, appellees acknowledge the roads in subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 to be dedicated to the public. The plats of each contain similar statements relative to dedication of the roads.3 The three subdivisions were established in 1961 and 1962.
The following appears in the notarized statement of appellees on the plat for subdivision 4:
“ * * * the surveying and subdivision of the lands described above and as appear on this Plat, to be known as North Fork Subdivision No. 4, * * * and that they do hereby dedicate to the public use such roads and public ways as shown on the foregoing Plat. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)
The plat shows the access road extending the full length of the subdivision on the northeast side. The metes and bounds description which is set forth on the plat as bounding the subdivision does not include the road area. The trial court made a legal determination that the failure to include the roads in the metes and bounds description excluded them from the dedication. Such determination places priority on the metes and bounds description rather than on the plat itself.
As quoted in the majority opinion, § 34-115, W.S. 1957 provides:
“The acknowledgment and recording of such plat, is equivalent to a deed in fee simple of such portion of the premises platted as is on such plat set apart for streets, or other public use, * * * ” (Emphasis added.)
The descriptive matter on the plat, although required, is not part of the plat itself.
“ * * * word ‘plat’ signifies a subdivision of land into lots, streets and alleys, marked upon the earth, and represented upon paper. * * * ” (Footnote omitted.) Monaco v. Bennion, 99 Idaho 529, 585 *806P.2d 608, 611 (1978). See Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. McCoy, 239 Ind. 301, 157 N.E.2d 181, 184 (1959).
Furthermore, the trial court’s determination does not give effect to the specific language in the dedication statement. Such language refers to and dedicates to public use, the roads “shown on the foregoing plat.”
The majority opinion notes that in construing instruments, they must be considered as a whole. This requires affording meaning to all of the language used, if that can be done and a reasonable construction achieved. Northern Gas Company v. Town of Sinclair, Wyo., 592 P.2d 1138 (1979). We should, thus, give effect to the language in the notarized statement to the effect that the roads “shown” were dedicated to the public as well as to the fact that such roads were plainly set out on the plat. Each of these would be completely superfluous under the construction given by the trial court and by the majority opinion.
Of interest, is the fact that appellees acknowledged the road on the plat of subdivision 4 to be dedicated to the public by so designating it on the map attached as an exhibit to their complaint.
Subdivision 5 was established in 1965. The access road extending its full length on the northeast side had been previously constructed in 1963 and 1964. The plat for subdivision 5 does not reflect this road, but the notarized statement of appellees on the plat recites:
“ * * * they do dedicate to the public use existing roads and ways.” (Emphasis added.)
Giving recognition to the change in wording from that used on plats for previous subdivisions, i. e., “as shown on the foregoing plat” to the wording on the plat for subdivision 5, i. e., “existing roads”, and attempting to give meaning to all of the language used, the obvious conclusion is that the “existing” road along the northeast boundary of subdivision 5, and necessarily used to gain access to the lots in subdivision 5 and to previously established subdivisions 1, 2, 3, and 4, was dedicated to the use of the public.
Accordingly, the plain and unambiguous language of the instruments establishing subdivisions 4 and 5 dedicate the roads in and adjacent thereto to the public and provide a means of access between the highway and the dedicated roads in subdivisions 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, appellants have access from the highway to their property over these dedicated roads.
The plain and unambiguous language of the deeds to the purchasers of the lots in homesites,4 coupled with the dedication to the public of the roads between the highway and subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 place the roads in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 out of the control of appellees for the purpose of giving them real party in interest status to maintain this action. The purpose in the requirement that an action be brought in the name of the real party in interest (Rule 17(a), W.R.C.P.) “is to assure that an action is brought by the present owner of the right sought to be enforced.” Wyoming Wool Marketing Association v. Urruty, Wyo., 394 P.2d 905, 907 (1964).
The ones to be concerned with the travel on the roads of the subdivisions are those who live along those roads and who are charged with maintaining them, i. e., the ones who own lots in homesites. These people have formed an association. The chairman of the executive board of the association testified that the association had taken no action to restrict appellants use of the roads. In fact, several of the association members have regularly asked and obtained appellants’ assistance in the voluntary use of their equipment to remove snow from homesites roads. The chairman of the association testified that relatives and friends of the residents use the roads on a regular basis and that tourists occasionally use the roads. Appellees are not real parties in interest to bring an action for an injunction to prohibit appellants use of the roads in homesites.
*807FACTUAL CONCLUSION
The majority opinion addresses the subdivision lands in this case in terms of easements granted the lot owners in homesites by appellees.5 It suggests that the servient estate (appellees) has a right to object to an unauthorized use of the easement by appellants. The citation in the majority opinion to 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses, § 72, is to a paragraph which concerns the right of action by the servient estate against the dominant estate, i. e., the ones to whom the easement was given (lot purchasers in this instance), and it is not truly applicable to the situation in this case. In any event, appellees here contend that appellants never acquired an easement. If this contention were accepted, the dominant-servient estate relationship would not exist between appellants and appellees.
Assuming for the purpose of argument that the use of the roads by appellants was unauthorized, i. e., that they were not dedicated to the public, the situation would be similar to that in which A regularly cuts across the corner of B’s lot. After B sells the lot to C, C does not object to A’s crossing but B brings an injunction action to prevent it. B would not be the proper party to bring the action.
An inspection of the homesites sketch, supra, reflects the impropriety of appellees claim of ownership to a narrow string-like piece of land, consisting of the roads through homesites, over which many others travel, but over which they allege the right to keep three people (appellants) from traveling. They would not be traveling over a portion of appellees’ servient estate. They, and all the others in the area, would be traveling over the entire land claimed to be owned by appellees. The situation does not have any element of the traditional question concerning the privilege of using a right-of-way.
Finally, the absurdity of appellees’ claim is spotlighted by the injunction against appellants use of the roads in homesites. The testimony was that many others use such roads including tourists and construction people going beyond the boundaries of homesites. The testimony was that friends and relatives of lot owners in homesites could, and did, use the roads. But if one of the lot owners in homesites invited one of the three appellants to his home, the invitee could not go without violating the injunction as issued by the trial court — unless he did so by helicopter. No longer can the owners of the lots in homesites request, and obtain help from appellants in preventing a snowbound situation by having appellants use their special equipment for removal of snow.
The change directed by the majority opinion to be made in the injunction whereby any of the homeowners can authorize appellants’ use of the roads only adds to the absurdity. Obviously appellants will obtain a permanent invite from one of the homeowners to use the roads. The result from the standpoint of this lawsuit is twofold: First, it is tantamount to an acknowledgment that the injunction is worthless and should not exist in the first instance. Second, it more than emphasizes the inaccuracy of the holding by the majority that the homeowners are not the real parties in interest in this ease. If they are recognized as the ones properly to authorize use of the roads, they are the ones who properly should contest the unauthorized use thereof — not the appellees.
Common sense and equity dictate against the issuance of an injunction to prevent three people from traveling on roads dedicated to the public and intended for public use (as reflected by all of the evidence) and actually traveled by other members of the public at their option — all at the behest of appellees who no longer are the real parties in interest with respect to the roads, and without any objection from the lot owners of homesites to appellants use of the roads, such lot owners being the real parties in interest with respect to the road usage.
*808I would reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of appellants against ap-pellees on the issues of the complaint and with direction to dismiss the counterclaim inasmuch as the roads in homesites have been dedicated to use of the public.
. A finding of fact by the trial court was “[t]hat for some years Defendants and their predecessors in title gained access to their property through Plaintiffs’ property.”
. The following language was in each deed:
“10. Initially Grantors will provide main access road to Grantee _ property, and thereafter Grantee _ agree to unite with other homesite owners in maintaining access road, and agree _ to build and maintain any necessary or desired road on_ own property.”
. The following appears in the notárized statement of appellees on the plat for subdivision 1:
“ * * * they do hereby dedicate to the public use said roads and public ways as shown on the foregoing plat.”
The following appears in such statement on the plat for subdivision 2:
“ * * * they do hereby dedicate to the public use said roads and ways as shown on the foregoing plat. * * * ”
The following appears in such statement on the plat for subdivision 3:
“ * * * they do hereby dedicate to the public use such roads and public ways as shown on the foregoing plat. * * * ”
. See fn. 2.
. An issue other than that as to whether or not appellants had a prescriptive right or easement to cross appellees lands, which is a question I find unnecessary to reach.