Hedderly v. Johnson
Decision Date | 04 February 1890 |
Citation | Hedderly v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 443, 44 N.W. 527 (Minn. 1890) |
Parties | HEDDERLY v JOHNSON. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1.To make a title to real estate unmarketable, so that specific performance of a contract to convey will not be enforced against the vendee, there must be a reasonable doubt as to its validity.If the doubt raise a question of law, it must be a fairly debatable one,-one upon which the judicial mind would hesitate before deciding it.If the doubt depend on a matter of fact, and there is no doubt as to how the fact is, and if it may be readily and easily shown at any time, it does not make the title unmarketable.
2.In a conveyance of real estate was this clause: “Reserving, however, a strip of land one hundred and fifty feet wide, to be used by the said railroad company for a right of way, or other railroad purposes, where the main line of this road, or any of its branches, as now located and constructed, or hereafter to be constructed, is laid, or may pass over said land.”Held, that the easement depended on the fact of the then location of the line; and as there is, as the case shows, no doubt that no line had then been located, and as the matter appears to be easily and readily proved at any time, the clause does not make the grantee's title unmarketable.
Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; LOCHREN, Judge.
Gilger & Harrison, for appellant.
Samuel E. Hall and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.
This is an action to enforce specific performance of a contract to convey real estate, brought against the vendee of the particular tract as to which the questions here involved arise.The tract is described as section 11, township 126, range 43.The defendant resists performance of the contract on the ground that the plaintiff, the vendor, is not able to give him a good, marketable title.The tract originally belonged to the First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, being a part of the land-grant earned by it.The plaintiff derives his title through a deed conveying the tract to one Wilson, made by the trustees of said railroad company, in which deed was this clause of reservation: “Reserving, however, a strip of land one hundred and fifty feet wide to be used by the said railroad company for a right of way, or other railroad purposes, where the main line of its road, or any of its branches, as now located and constructed, or hereafter to be constructed, is laid or may pass over said premises.”This clause, it is claimed, makes the title unmarketable; and undoubtedly it does, if it makes an effectual, operative, reservation of a right of way upon the land, or if it makes it reasonably doubtful whether the right of way does or does not exist.Courts will not compel a vendee to take an unmarketable title when he has stipulated for a good one; and a title is deemed unmarketable, within this rule, where, although it may be good, there is a reasonable doubt as to its validity.The term “reasonable doubt” is always used in this connection, because, as a doubt might be suggested or question raised as to most titles, it would go far to do away with the remedy by specific performance if a mere doubt raised, without regard to its character, were permitted to defeat the action.A doubt as to the title may be raised upon a question of law, or upon a question of fact, or upon both law and fact.It is impossible to state any precise and definite rule by which to determine when a doubt raised upon a question of law is to be deemed reasonable.Without going so far as some of the English cases, which appear to hold that, in case where the doubt exists as to the construction of an act of parliament, or of a deed or will, the court will resolve the doubt, and thus remove it, so that it shall not stand in the way of enforcing specific performance, we can at least say that the doubt suggested must raise a question of law that is fairly debatable,-one upon which the judicial mind would hesitate before deciding it.If it depend on the construction of an act of the legislature or of a written instrument, and the construction is readily arrived at by the application of the well-known rules of interpretation, it ought not to be regarded as making the title doubtful.The case of Fairchild v. Marshall, 43 N. W. Rep. 563,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Greer v. International Stock Yards Co.
...litigation to remove even that which is even a cloud upon his title. * * * Courts of equity do not force the purchasers to take anything but a good title, and do not compel them to buy lawsuits." See, also,
Hedderly v. Johnson (Minn.) 44 N. W. 527, 18 Am. St. Rep. 521. In Fahy v. Cavanagh (N. J. Ch.) 44 Atl. 156, it is held, after an exhaustive examination and consideration of the authorities, that "if the title depends upon a question of fact, which is not a matter of record,... -
Hubachek v. Maxbass Sec. Bank
...vendee in executory contracts for the sale of land from the burden of litigation which may be necessary to remove apparent or real defects in the title. Austin v. Barnum, 52 Minn. 136, 53 N. W. 1132;
Hedderly v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 443, 44 N. W. 527,18 Am. St. Rep. 521;Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385, 107 N. W. 397,4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1170, 114 Am. St. Rep. 723. The subject was fully considered by Mr. Justice Elliott in the last case cited, and practically all the authorities... -
McManus v. Blackmarr
...could not perfect or obtain the title. The object of the action was to recover the amounts paid by plaintiffs, on the ground of defendant's inability to confer a good title to the property. It is undoubtedly true, as stated in
Hedderly v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 443,44N. W. Rep. 527, that courts will not compel a vendee of real estate to take an unmarketable title when he has stipulated for a good one; but we have no such case to deal with. There was no express stipulation in either of... -
McManus v. Blackmarr
...could not perfect or obtain the title. The object of the action was to recover the amounts paid by plaintiffs, on the ground of defendant's inability to confer a good title to the property. It is undoubtedly true, as stated in
Hedderly v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 443, (44 527,) that courts will not compel a vendee of real estate to take an unmarketable title when he has stipulated for a good one; but we have no such case to deal with. There was no express stipulation in either of these writings...