Higgins v. Okla. City
Decision Date | 14 December 1937 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 23822 |
Citation | 191 Okla. 16,1937 OK 721,127 P.2d 845 |
Parties | HIGGINS et al. v. OKLAHOMA CITY |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. RAILROADS - Railroad authorized under Oklahoma Territory statute to acquire by deed fee-simple title to land.
By reason of section 1022, Stat. of Oklahoma 1903 (sec. 11913, O. S. 1931), a railway company was authorized to acquire by deed the fee-simple title to lands for railway purposes.
2. SAME - Right-of-way deed held to pass fee-simple title to land.
A right-of-way deed executed by the owner of land to a railway company containing the operative words "grant, bargain, quitclaim, and relinquish and convey" passed the fee-simple title to the land therein described in the absence of express words of limitation contained in the deed.
3. SAME - Right-of-way deed held unambiguous and to contain no express words limiting estate conveyed.
The deed in the instant case examined; held, to clearly express the intention of the parties and to contain no express words limiting the estate thereby conveyed.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock, Judge.
Suit by Robert W. Higgins and others against the City of Oklahoma City. A judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma (172 Okla. 182, 144 P.2d 135), which affirmed judgment in favor of the defendant, was reversed by the United States Supreme Court (297 U.S. 481, 56 S.Ct. 562, 80 L.Ed. 816), and cause was remanded to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for further proceedings. Judgment of district court affirmed.
Writ of certiorari denied by Supreme Court, 305 U.S. 607, 59 S.Ct. 67, 83 L.Ed. 386.
See, also, Oklahoma City v. Dobbins, 189 Okla. 381, 117 P.2d 132; Noble v. Oklahoma City, 191 Okla. 20, 127 P.2d 843.
Joe T. Rogers, of Wichita, Kan., Warren E. Libby, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Fred Suits, Henry L. Goddard, Fred Ptak, and Chas. H. Garnett, all of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
A.L. Jeffrey, Municipal Counselor, and Warren W. Connor, Asst. Municipal Counselor, and Jarman, Brown & Watts, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
George E. Massey, Jr., of Oklahoma City, amicus curiae.
¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county by the heirs of Robert W. Higgins against the city of Oklahoma City to recover possession of a certain parcel of land located in said city and formerly occupied as a right of way by a railroad corporation. The parties will be hereafter designated in the order of their appearance at the trial.
¶2 This court on appeal of this cause has heretofore affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant (Noble v. Oklahoma City; Higgins v. Same, Consolidated, 172 Okla. 182, 44 P.2d 135). The case then went to the Supreme Court of the United States, where our decision was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings as therein expressed (Noble v. Oklahoma City; Higgins v. Same, 297 U.S. 481).
¶3 The facts in the case and the contentions of the parties are set out in the foregoing decisions, and reference thereto is here made.
¶4 The above-mentioned decision of the Supreme Court of the United States settled this controversy in every respect with the exception of the effect of a certain right-of-way deed executed by plaintiffs' ancestor to the railroad company. It is sufficient to say that if that deed conveyed an absolute estate in fee simple, the plaintiffs are without valid claim to the land and their action in ejectment must fail. That question, under the mandate to this court, remains for our determination.
¶5 The deed in question reads as follows:
¶6 Some argument is advanced that a railway company could not acquire the fee-simple title to lands in that particular territory at the time the above deed was executed. In view of section 1022, Stat. of Oklahoma 1903 (sec. 11913, O. S. 1931), we find no merit in the argument. Subdivision 3 of the section provides as follows:
"To acquire under the provisions of this article, or by purchase, all such real estate and other property either within or without this state, as may be necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its railroad, and the station, depot grounds, and other accommodations reasonably necessary to accomplish the objects of its incorporation; to hold and use the same, to lease or otherwise dispose of any part or parcel thereof, or sell the same when not required for railroad uses, and no longer necessary to its use."
¶7 When the deed was executed, Higgins owned the fee-simple title to the tract therein described. This was settled by the decision in 297 U.S. 481, supra. We are to determine the quantity of estate the deed conveyed. If it contains an element of uncertainty as to the intention of the parties, that intention may, by parol evidence, be ascertained from the admissions of the parties or other extraneous circumstances; the intention of the grantor will be gathered from the whole instrument, if possible, without undue emphasis upon any one part thereof to the exclusion of another. Rogers v. Kinney, 122 Okla. 73, 250 P. 890.
¶8 But when the deed was executed, section 30, ch. 8, S. L. 1897 (sec. 9698, O. S. 1931), was in force. That section provides that "every estate in land which shall be granted, conveyed or demised by deed or will, shall be deemed an estate in fee-simple and of inheritance, unless limited by express words." And a quitclaim deed made in substantial compliance with the chapter on conveyances conveys all the right, title, and interest of the maker thereof in and to the premises therein described. Section 17, ch. 8, S. L. 1897 (sec. 9679, O. S. 1931). Under section 42, ch. 8, S. L. 1897 (sec. 9680, O. S. 1931), the granting clause of a quitclaim deed may contain the words "do hereby quitclaim, grant, bargain, sell and convey," but a substantial compliance with that section is sufficient; the section is directory and not mandatory. Mosier v. Momsen, 13 Okla. 41, 74 P. 905. Words of a similar import, showing an intention to convey a present interest, are sufficient. Id.
¶9 In Walker v. Renegar, 178 Okla. 82, 61 P.2d 666, the words "set over and assign" were held sufficient to convey title. In the instant case the operative words used were "grant, bargain, quitclaim and relinquish and convey." The words "grant" and "convey" here used, if not of greater operative force, are at least equal to the words "set over and assign." "Grant" and "convey" are words often used interchangeably, and either is sufficient as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rowell v. Gulf, M. & O.R. Co.
... ... & S. A ... Ry. Co., Tex.Com.App., 212 S.W. 639; Right of Way Oil Co ... v. Gladys City Oil Co., 106 Tex. 94, 157 S.W. 737, 51 ... L.R.A., N.S., 268; Jones v. Van Bochove, 103 Mich ... title rather than granted an easement, are: Higgins v ... Oklahoma City, 191 Okl. 16, 127 P.2d 845; Texas & ... Pacific Ry. Co. v. Martin, 123 Tex ... ...
-
Cleary Petroleum Corp. v. Harrison
... ... Monnet, Hayes, Bullis, Thompson & Edwards by Richard A. Grimes, Oklahoma City, for appellant, Cleary Petroleum Corp ... Smith & Wright by Gale F. Smith, ... The terms of 16 O.S. 1971 § 29 were then in force. They were originally enacted in 1897, Okla.Sess. L. 1897, Ch. 8, § 30 ... 12 St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Humphrey, Okl., 446 P.2d ... v. Arrow Industrial Mfg. Co., Okl., 297 P.2d 410, 411 (1956); Higgins v. Oklahoma City, 191 Okl. 16, 127 P.2d 845, 848 (1937); Marland v. Gillespie, 168 Okl. 376, 33 ... ...
-
Aubert v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
...251 P.2d 190 ... 207 Okla. 537 ... AUBERT et al ... ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. et al ... No. 34816 ... Supreme Court ... Robinson, Shipp & Robertson, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error ... E. G. Nahler, St. Louis, Mo., Tom Garrett and ... Ry. Co., 190 Okl. 624, 126 P.2d 260, Cobbs v. Wiedemann, 170 Okl. 493, 40 P.2d 1075, and Higgins v. Oklahoma City, 191 Okl. 16, 127 P.2d 845. So also are the cases from other jurisdictions cited ... ...
-
Gutensohn v. McGuirt
...147 P.2d 777 194 Okla. 64, 1944 OK 161 GUTENSOHN v. McGUIRT et al. No. 30886.Supreme Court of OklahomaApril 4, 1944 ... Rittenhouse, ... Webster, Hanson & Rittenhouse, of Oklahoma City, Paul E ... Gutensohn, of Fort Smith, Ark., and J. Walter Long, Jr., of ... Okemah, for ... 376, 33 P.2d 207; Cobbs v. Wiedemann et al., 170 ... Okl. 493, 40 P.2d 1075; and Higgins et al. v. Oklahoma ... City, 191 Okl. 16, 127 P.2d 845. All these cases are to ... the effect ... ...