Carr v. Miller
Decision Date | 02 February 1921 |
Docket Number | 21133 |
Citation | 181 N.W. 557,105 Neb. 623 |
Parties | SAMUEL CARR ET AL., APPELLEES, v. MATT MILLER, APPELLANT |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: WILLIS G. SEARS JUDGE. Reversed and dismissed.
Reversed and the action dismissed.
Helsell & Helsell, Matt Miller and William Baird & Sons, for appellant.
Morsman & Maxwell, contra.
This is an action in ejectment to recover a strip of land 100 feet in width and 970 feet in length, described in the petition, and located in the eastern edge of the city of Omaha on the west bank of the Missouri river. The case was tried upon the amended petition, the answer thereto, and plaintiffs' demurrer to divisions II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX of the answer, and upon a stipulation between the parties that the allegations of fact contained in the amended petition and the answer thereto, subject to proper objections on the ground of immateriality irrelevancy, and incompetency, should be taken as true. The district court sustained plaintiffs' demurrer to the divisions of answer named, to which the defendant excepted and stood upon his answer. The cause then came on for decision by the court, a jury having been waived, and the court found that plaintiffs were the owners of the lands described in the amended petition and entitled to the immediate possession thereof. After the overruling of his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed to this court.
Under the stipulation of the parties, the amended petition and the answer thereto were settled as a bill of exceptions. There is therefore no disputed question of fact, and the question presented to us for decision is the construction of a certain instrument in writing executed on the 21st day of November 1899, between the East Omaha Land Company and the Omaha Bridge & Terminal Railway Company, which the appellant claims constitutes a conveyance of the lands in controversy in fee simple, and the appellees contend conveyed only as easement or a right of way in said lands, which was abandoned by the grantee upon its subsequent conveyance of the land to a private person.
Both parties hereto claim title to the premises in controversy through the East Omaha Land Company, which is conceded to have held the title in fee on November 21, 1899, and for many years prior thereto. On that date the land company executed the deed or instrument under consideration to the terminal company. On March 31, 1902, the land company mortgaged the premises, with other lands, to the Old Colony Trust Company, however, "subject to said agreement and deed dated November 21, 1899." On January 16, 1903, in the United States district court at Omaha, a decree was entered foreclosing this mortgage, but the terminal company was not a party to the suit, and hence was not affected thereby. On June 10, 1903, the master sold the lands to Grafton St. L. Abbott, who purchased in trust for the benefit of the bondholders, and he received a deed. On May 9, 1903, the land company conveyed to Abbott by deed. Abbott conveyed to himself and two associate trustees, and plaintiffs in this action are their successors. As the mortgage was expressly made subject to the deed of November 21, 1899, and the terminal company was not a party to the foreclosure proceedings, the legal situation is the same as if the land company had executed a deed direct to plaintiffs on May 9, 1903. On June 6, 1917, the terminal company conveyed the land in controversy to Samuel P. Elliott, who on October 3, 1917, by ordinary deed, conveyed it to the defendant herein.
The instrument of November 21, 1899, consists of eight typewritten pages. As the recitations of the instrument down to and including the granting clause are necessary to an understanding of the situation, as well as to the construction of the instrument, we set that part out in full, as follows:
There are other provisions in the instrument which we shall consider later on, in so far as they are discussed in the briefs or appear material.
Appellant contends that the instrument conveyed an absolute title in fee simple, while the appellees contend that the instrument taken together and considered as a whole, conveyed only a right of way, and that the words, "for terminal and railway purposes and uses," indicate an implied reversion or forfeiture for abandonment. It will be observed from that portion of the instrument above quoted that the full consideration for the execution of the deed had passed to the grantor therein. The land company had about 1,700 acres of land located along the Missouri river, in the city of Omaha, which it was engaged in developing, improving and placing upon the market. In the course of the work of development the land company considered it necessary to have a proper system of trackage for taking care of the then present and future business enterprises and industries located in that vicinity. The land company had on June 1, 1889, entered into a contract with the Union Pacific Railway Company for this purpose and part of the construction work was done by that company. Again, on the 23d day of July 1892, the land Company entered into another contract with the Interstate Bridge & Street Railway Company, the predecessor of the terminal company, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial