Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Lund

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN, J.
• Citation: Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Lund, 97 N.W. 452, 91 Minn. 45 (Minn. 1903)
• Decision Date: 04 December 1903
• Docket Number: 13,617 - (125)
• Parties: MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY v. HJALMAR LUND and Another

97 N.W. 452

91 Minn. 45

MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY v. HJALMAR LUND and Another

Nos. 13,617 - (125)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 4, 1903

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Nicollet county, Powers, J. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Wife's Interest in Husband's Real Estate.

The contingent or inchoate interest of the wife, under G.S. 1894 § 4471, in the real property of the husband, may be defended by her in an action against both husband and wife to quiet title to the land, though perhaps she could not maintain an affirmative action to recover such interest prior to the death of the husband.

Executory Contract.

G.S 1894, § 4280, providing that when a grant of land for a valuable consideration is made to one person, the consideration being paid by another, no use or trust shall result in favor of the one making the payment, but the title shall vest in the person named as grantee, has no application to an executory contract for the sale of land.

Estoppel.

On the facts stated in the opinion, it is held that judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings should not have been granted. The uncontroverted facts pleaded in the complaint do not estop defendants from asserting their interest in at least a part of the land in question.

Wellington Brown, for appellants.

Albert E. Clarke, for respondent.

OPINION

BROWN, J. ^[2]

Action to quiet title to real estate, in which plaintiff had judgment on the pleadings, and defendants appealed.

From the complaint it appears that on December 17, 1894, one Plummer was the owner of the east half of the northeast quarter of section 2, township 111, range 30, in Nicollet county, and entered into a written contract with one John Lund by which he sold and agreed to convey the premises to Lund for the price and upon the terms specified in the writing. The contract was not recorded until long after the execution and delivery of the deeds hereinafter mentioned. The complaint alleges that said John Lund made said contract, not for himself or in his own interest, but as the agent and trustee, and at the special instance and request, and for the benefit, of defendant Hjalmar Lund, his brother; that it was agreed and understood between defendant Hjalmar and his brother John that the premises so contracted for were to be the property of said Hjalmar, and that, upon payment by him of the purchase price to Plummer, John would cause Plummer to convey the legal title to him; that, pursuant to this agreement and understanding between the two brothers, defendant Hjalmar immediately after the execution of the contract entered into the possession of the premises, and has at all times since then been in the actual occupation of the same; that on October 31, 1895, John Lund and wife conveyed to the Minneapolis, New Ulm & Southwestern Railway Company, its successors and assigns, by warranty deed, a strip of land one hundred feet wide across the premises as and for a right of way for said company, and for the consideration of $125; that said consideration was paid to John Lund by the railway company, and by him paid over to defendant Hjalmar, who accepted and received it, and ratified and confirmed the action of his brother in deeding the right of way to the company. There is, however, no allegation in the complaint that defendant's wife, Christina Lund, received the consideration for said deed, or any part of it, or that she in any manner ratified or confirmed the conveyance; nor are there any allegations that she has in any manner relinquished her inchoate interest in the land existing by reason of the fact that she is the wife of defendant Hjalmar, who the complaint alleges was the owner of the land.

Subsequent to this deed, on May 20, 1896, while the defendants were still in possession of the land, John Lund and wife executed another deed to the same railway company of two additional strips extending over the premises, one of the width of fifty feet adjoining on the east, and one of the width of one hundred and fifty feet adjoining on the west, of the original strip. It does not appear what consideration was in fact paid for this conveyance, though the complaint alleges that one of the considerations therefor was the benefit resulting to the land from the establishment and maintenance of a railway station at that point. The complaint alleges that defendant Hjalmar expressly consented to and authorized the execution of this deed, but the answer denies it, and affirmatively alleges that it was executed wholly without authority or consideration. At the time of the execution of these deeds the record title of the land was in Plummer, and the railway company undoubtedly learned of him, through inquiry, of the contract with John Lund for its sale; but it does not appear that any inquiries were made of Hjalmar Lund, who was in possession of the land, and the equitable owner thereof under the contract, as to his rights. The complaint further alleges that subsequent to the execution of the deeds the railway company entered upon the premises conveyed thereby, and constructed its railroad over and across the same, and erected its station buildings thereon, which have since been maintained. Some time after the execution of such deeds, defendant Hjalmar paid Plummer the contract price of the land, and the latter conveyed the same to him by a properly executed deed, which was duly recorded January 22, 1900. Plaintiff in this action succeeded to the title and all the rights of the Minneapolis, New Ulm & Southwestern Railway Company, and brought this action to quiet title to the land conveyed by said deeds.

The answer admits substantially all the allegations of the complaint, though, as already stated, an issue is raised as to the authority of John Lund and wife to execute and deliver the second deed. The answer distinctly denies such authority and alleges also that the deed was without consideration. As to the first deed, defendant Hjalmar admits that the consideration...