Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co., 17 N.D. 409, 117 N.W. 354, 357 (1908). A statutory dedication is “in the nature of a grant,” while a common-law dedication “rests upon the principles of estoppel in pais.” Cole, at 357. The dedication, therefore, is regarded not as transferring a right, but as operating to preclude the owner from resuming his right of private property, or indeed any use inconsistent with the public use. The ground of the estoppel is that to reclaim the land would be a violation of good faith to the public and to those who have acquired private property with a view to the enjoyment of the use contemplated by the dedication. Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Sherry, 238 Ark. 127, 381 S.W.2d 448, 451 (1964); Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson Partnership, 851 S.W.2d 504, 508 (Mo.1993) . Indeed, we have previously stated “the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the property owner argued only a theory of taking that was no longer a valid theory property owner did not demonstrate his entitlement to relief
B. holding the effect of a common law dedication is that the public acquires an easement to use the property for the purposes specified while the fee remains with the dedicator
C. holding the effect of a commonlaw dedication is to create only such an estate or right in the public as is necessary to enable it to enjoy the uses for which the dedication is made and to reserve the fee to the dedicator
D. holding because dedication is a theory premised on estoppel  the owner can be precluded from resuming rights over the property if the public acts upon the owners manifestations
E. holding that intent need not be express and in fact need not actually exist in the owners mind but may be implied from acts and conduct of the owner which are unequivocally and convincingly indicative of a dedication and upon which the public has a right to and does rely
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.