Blumenthal v. Blumenthal
Decision Date | 28 June 1913 |
Citation | 158 S.W. 648,251 Mo. 693 |
Parties | OTTILLIE BLUMENTHAL et al. v. AUGUSTUS A. BLUMENTHAL et al., Appellants |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. William M. Kinsey Judge.
Affirmed.
J. L Hornsby for appellants.
(1) In construing a deed every part should be given effect. Chew v. Kellar, 171 Mo. 223; 17 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.) p. 7, n. 3. (2) Parol testimony is not permissible to vary or control the words of a grant in a deed. Wolff v. Dyer, 95 Mo. 545; Jennings v. Brizeadine, 44 Mo. 332. (3) The word "half" where used in the deed in defining the respective interests of appellants and respondents should be construed literally, and means half in quantity. Boom Co. v. Whitney, 26 Mich. 42; Dart v. Barbour, 32 Mich. 267; Owen v. Henderson, 16 Wash. 39; Winslow v. Cooper, 104 Ill. 235; Cogan v. Cook, 22 Minn. 137.
M. W. Feuerbacher for respondents.
(1) Nothing but monuments can control courses and distances. Where the land is described by another's land, the latter tract of land is a monument of description, and the true line of his land will control the courses and distances given in the deed. Tiedeman Real Property (3 Ed.), p. 878-9, par. 603; Peaslee v. Gee, 19 N.H. 273; Park v. Pratt, 38 Vt. 552; Smith v. Land & Imp. Co., 117 Mo. 444; Harding v. Wright, 119 Mo. 9; Whittaker v. Whitaker, 175 Mo. 11. (2) To render a deed or other instrument ambiguous, or void for uncertain description, the ambiguity must be patent, and appear on its face; but where the deed or instrument appears certain and without ambiguity and the uncertainty arises by matter outside of the instrument, then it contains a latent ambiguity and may be explained by the application of extrinsic evidence. Hardy v. Matthews, 38 Mo. 124; Lego v. Medley, 79 Wis. 218; Robards v. Brown, 167 Mo. 457; Goff v. Roberts, 72 Mo. 573; Schreiber v. Osten, 50 Mo. 516; Morgan v. Burrows, 45 Wis. 217; Jones v. Pashby, 62 Mich. 614. (3) The meaning that the parties attached to the language employed, especially in matters of description, may be shown by parol evidence relating to the situation and condition of the subject-matter. Devlin on Real Estate (3 Ed.), sec. 1015a, p. 1937; Lego v. Medley, 79 Wis. 211; Lyman v. Babcock, 40 Wis. 512. (4) A controlling principle in the construction of deeds as well as of wills and other instruments in writing, is to ascertain the meaning of the grantor from the words he uses, in the light of the circumstances which surrounded, attended and waited upon his use of them. Long v. Timms, 107 Mo. 512; Carter v. Foster, 145 Mo. 392; Speed v. Terminal Ry. Co., 163 Mo. 124; Aldridge v. Aldridge, 202 Mo. 572; Ganson v. Madigan, 15 Wis. 154; Railroad v. Frowein, 163 Mo. 17; Construction Co. v. Tie Co., 185 Mo. 62; Bernero v. Real Estate Co., 134 Mo.App. 299. (5) There can be no universal rule that the word half shall be interpreted in its ordinary meaning of one-half of the quantity, for it is often used in conveyances when the context indicates a sense quite different. Jones v. Pashby, 48 Mich. 637, 62 Mich. 614; Iron M. Co. v. Mining Co., 80 Mich. 491; Wolfe v. Dyer, 85 Mo. 545; Devlin on Real Estate (3 Ed.), sec. 1042, p. 2025; Grandy v. Casey, 93 Mo. 595.
Action to determine and quiet title to real estate. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
August A. Blumenthal, Sr., a citizen of St. Louis, was the father of four children; two sons, August A. Blumenthal, Jr., and Berthold W. Blumenthal; and two daughters, Paulina Blumenthal and Otillie Blumenthal.
On January 26, 1876, and only a few months before his death, said August A. Blumenthal, Sr., conveyed to one John N. Straat, as trustee for his sons and daughters above named, a parcel of land in St. Louis City, which parcel of land has a frontage of eighty-two feet on the east side of Broadway street (then known as Main street), bounded on the north by Elwood street, on the south by the homestead of said grantor, and extending back eastward from said Broadway street an average depth of 163 feet to the right-of-way of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company.
On the northwest corner of this parcel of land was and is situated a three-story brick building, fronting forty-eight feet on Broadway street and extending eastward along the south boundary of Elwood street about fifty-five feet.
The front entrance to this building is on Broadway street, where there is a hallway about eight feet wide extending from west to east through the entire building, and from the first floor upward to the third floor thereof. The several floors of said building are connected by stairs in the above-mentioned hallway. The hallway divides the three-story building in the middle, and the first floor is fitted up for stores, and the second and third floors for residences or other purposes.
On the north side of this parcel of land, and in the rear of the three-story building before described, are two small one-story brick buildings fronting on Elwood street, neither of which extends southward from said Elwood street more than twenty feet.
This parcel of land, eighty-two feet wide north and south, by an average depth of 163 feet, was in the condition hereinbefore set out, when August A. Blumenthal, Sr., conveyed the same to Straat, as trustee, for the use of his two sons and two daughters, hereinbefore named, by deed, which reads as follows (Italics are ours):
The real purpose of this action is to construe the above-quoted deed.
The learned trial judge being of the opinion that the foregoing deed possessed certain latent ambiguities admitted oral evidence showing the situation of the property and that immediately after the deed was executed said August A. Blumenthal, Jr., took...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chouteau v. City of St. Louis
...(1) Any trust created under the deed in question was a dry trust, executed by the Statute of Uses. R. S. 1929, sec. 303; Blumenthal v. Blumenthal, 251 Mo. 693; Pugh Hayes, 113 Mo. 424. (a) The fact that the grant may have fulfilled a public need and hence be considered charitable does not p......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Clarke
... ... thereon, as shown by what they did, is strong evidence of ... what the deed was intended to mean. Blumenthal v ... Blumenthal, 251 Mo. 693; Petty v. Griffith, 165 ... S.W.2d 412. (3) Hazlett Campbell did not inherit one-fourth ... of the present trust ... ...
-
State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Union Elec. Co. of Missouri
... ... 545, 8 S.W. 551; Union Depot Co. v ... Railroad, 131 Mo. 305, 31 S.W. 908; Patterson v ... Camden, 25 Mo. 21, 8 S.W. 167; Blumenthal v ... Blumenthal, 251 Mo. 693, 158 S.W. 648; Gas Light Co ... v. St. Louis, 46 Mo. 121; Livingston v. Gen ... Broeck, 16 Johns. 15; ... ...
-
Schroer v. Brooks
... ... 110; State ex rel. v. Burrough, 174 Mo. 700; ... Martin v. Ketchen, 195 Mo. 477; McCommack v ... Parsons, 195 Mo. 91; Blumenthal v. Blumenthal, ... 251 Mo. 693; Schroeder v. Turpin, 253 Mo. 258; ... Cement & M. Co. v. Kreis, 261 Mo. 160. (2) Where the ... description in ... ...