Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler
| Decision Date | 29 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42200,42200 |
| Citation | 177 N.W.2d 786,287 Minn. 254 |
| Parties | MINNEAPOLIS ATHLETIC CLUB, Respondent, v. Arthur COHLER, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A grant of 'a right of way over and the privilege of the free use as a private alley' is an easement only and title to the land does not pass; the grantee acquires only the right to a reasonable and usual enjoyment of the easement, with the owner of the soil retaining all rights and benefits of ownership consistent with the easement.
2. A grant of an easement of a right-of-way does not by implication include the right to have that way kept open to the sky for light and air, and the grant is not interfered with by building an enclosed walkway not less than 16 feet above ground level over the right-of-way, provided there is no interference with the reasonable use of the easement as a passageway. Subject to the easement, the landowner's control extends indefinitely upward from the surface and downward from it.
Stacker, Silverstein, Burke & Radsom, and R. William Reilly, St. Paul, for appellants.
Thompson, Hessian, Fletcher & McKasy, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and NELSON, MURPHY, OTIS and JAMES F. MURPHY, JJ.
*
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial and from a judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiff.
The facts can be briefly stated as follows: Plaintiff has its present clubhouse on property it owns in downtown Minneapolis. It proposes to expand its facilities by erecting a building behind its present building on land it has acquired. Between the present clubhouse and the proposed new structure is an 8-foot alley, which is the subject of this litigation. Plaintiff intends to connect its present clubhouse with the proposed new building by placing a walkway which will be at least 16 feet above ground level over the alley.
Contending that it owns this 8-foot alley and that defendants as owners of the adjoining property own an easement with the right of free travel over the alley, plaintiff brought this action for a declaratory judgment to determine its right to build and maintain the walkway over the alley. Defendants maintained, both in the trial court and on appeal, that they are the owners in fee simple of this portion of the alley and, in the alternative, that the construction of the walkway will interfere with the use of their easement.
The facts were stipulated and in addition thereto it was stipulated that '(b) oth state law and an ordinance of the City of Minneapolis prohibit the use of vehicles which exceed a height of thirteen feet six inches.' 1
The rights of the respective parties are determined by a document executed in 1912 by plaintiff's and defendants' predecessors in title. Plaintiff's predecessor in title, W. L. Harris Realty Company, conveyed to defendants' predecessor in title, The Minneapolis Elks Building Company, certain real estate situated next to the present plaintiff's clubhouse, and by said document defendants' predecessor and its successors and assigns were granted 'a right of way over and the privilege of the free use as a private alley' of the 8-foot strip of land immediately behind plaintiff's clubhouse. It is to be noted that by the aforesaid document plaintiff's predecessor reserved 'a right of way over and the privilege of the free use as a private alley' of an 8-foot wide strip of land behind defendants' property so as to complete the alleyway behind both properties.
The issue is the determination of the rights of the parties in the 8-foot strip of alleyway behind plaintiff's property.
1. Defendants first contend that through their predecessor in title they acquired, in part, a right-of-way in fee, resulting in fee ownership of the land and all air rights over and above said land, as opposed to an easement in the alley.
This court had occasion in Sanborn v. City of Minneapolis, 35 Minn. 314, 29 N.W. 126, to construe an instrument to determine whether it conveyed a grant in fee or an easement. There the vendor executed an instrument conveying to the vendee 'and others who do and may own property along the within-described alley' the premises in question, declared to be 'deeded for alley purposes.' This court held that in the construction of an instrument the entire deed and not merely a particular part of it will be considered. The court said (35 Minn. 317, 29 N.W. 126):
'* * * But if we adopt a cardinal rule in the construction of deeds, that it be made on the entire deed, and not merely upon a particular part, and, having thus taken the instrument by the four corners, we endeavor to ascertain its intent, which is the essence of every agreement, we will be led to the * * * conclusion * * * that this deed grants merely an easement of a right of way as an alley. The right granted has all the characteristics of a mere easement, as distinguished from an estate in the land.
The instrument here involved clearly indicates an intention on the part of the vendor to grant only an easement for the purpose of accommodating defendants' predecessor and its assigns with the right to use the alley.
What defendants herein received was 'a right of way over and the privilege of the free use as a private alley' of the 8-foot strip of land.
A right-of-way is an easement only and a conveyance thereof is not a conveyance of the land itself. Title to the land under such circumstances does not pass. In its strict meaning a right-of-way means the right to pass over another's land. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass'n
...it was, and is, elementary that the grantor of the easement retains ownership over "the land itself ." Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler , 287 Minn. 254, 257, 177 N.W.2d 786, 789 (1970) (emphasis added). Stated more plainly, easements are not land, they merely burden land that continues t......
-
State v. Hess
...to the use or enjoyment of the land rather than an interest in the real property itself. See Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler, 287 Minn. 254, 258, 177 N.W.2d 786, 789 (1970) (citing Restatement (First) of Property, § 450 (1944)). An easement does not convey an estate; rather, it passes o......
-
Three Putt, LLC v. City of Minnetonka, No. A08-1436 (Minn. App. 6/2/2009)
...this claim. The grantee of an easement is entitled to a limited use or enjoyment of the land. Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler, 287 Minn. 254, 258, 177 N.W.2d 786, 789 (1970). The extent of an easement by grant is defined entirely by the construction of the terms of the grant. Highway 7 ......
-
Compart v. Wolfstellar
...construction beyond the objects originally contemplated or expressly agreed upon by the parties." Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler , 287 Minn. 254, 258, 177 N.W.2d 786, 789–90 (1970). Here, the Comparts argue that they have farmed the property consistently since purchasing the property i......
-
CHAPTER 2 ACQUIRING EXPRESS RIGHTS-OF-WAY: DRAFTING CONSIDERATIONS
...[19] Thurston Enterprises, Inc. v. Baldi, 128 N.H. 760, 519 A.2d 297, 300 (1986). [20] Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler, 287 Min. 254, 177 N.W.2d 786 (1970). [21] Skidmore v. First Bank of Minneapolis, 773 P.2d 587 (Colo. App. 1988); See also, Bernard v. Gaumer, 146 Colo. 409, 361 P.2d 7......