Yes, reading between the lines in the 1910 cases, one sees a little exasperation with the logic of the Rumsey court. In Ryerson, 93 N.E. at 165, the court kind of sighs: “The Rumsey Case . . . has become a rule of property, which has been relied on for many years, and which we should not now disregard.”
Meanwhile in the Sears case, 93 N.E. at 162, the same court says that “title of the abutting lot owners . . . in the School Section . . .had become vested to the center of the streets,” so any statute saying otherwise would be a taking. Interestingly (to me), this is the same court that only a few years earlier had ruled that the General Assembly could not take Montgomery Ward’s interest in having Grant Park “forever open, free, and clear”—even by eminent domain.
I suppose the court is more lenient with having the intent shown by the canal commissioners (before there was a Plat Act) modify the common-law rule than with letting the school commissioners ignore the statutory requirements spelled out by the Plat Act passed a few months earlier.