Rhines v. Consumers' Power Co., 64.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 64.,64. |
| Citation | 259 Mich. 236,242 N.W. 898 |
| Parties | RHINES v. CONSUMERS' POWER CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John Simpson, Judge.
Suit by Emmett Rhines against the Consumers' Power Company. From the decree rendered, the defendant appeals.
Decree modified in part, and otherwise affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Bisbee, McDone, Wilson & King, of Jackson, for appellant.
Frank L. Blackman, of Jackson, for appellee.
November 14, 1901, by quitclaim deed, plaintiff and wife conveyed to Jackson & Albion Electric Railway Company a two-rod strip of land adjacent to a highway. The granting, habendum, and tenendum clauses of the deed were unqualified, but following the description was the provision: ‘In the event of abandonment of this strip of land for the purpose granted electric car line, for a period of three years, the same shall revert to grantor, his heirs or assigns.’
Shortly thereafter, an electric railway was constructed by the grantee, and it was continuously operated until the summer of 1929, when it was abandoned, the rails removed, and the land sold by the grantee to defendant, which proposes to use it for construction and maintenance of an electric distribution line.
This suit was commenced July 26, 1930, to restrain the contemplated use by defendant as contrary to the use provided in the deed, and as injuring the reversion. Defendant contended the action was prematurely brought and that the condition was fulfilled and abrogated by long use of the strip for electric railway purposes.
The court held that action premature and that the bill should be dismissed without prejudice to later proceedings. On defendant's contention that the condition has been abrogated and on its insistence that such question be determined, the court filed opinions holding the condition operative, and inserted in the decree dismissing the bill a provision that the opinions are made part of the decree. Defendant now complains of the latter provision. We think it should be stricken as a matter of good form in a decree. Where reasons and rulings are to be incorporated in a decree, in rare instances where it seems necessary in the interest of clarity, they should be concisely set out. The record shows that the issue was raised by defendant, and the decree covers it without direct reference to the opinions.
The deed conveyed, not an easement of way, but a fee upon condition subsequent. Quinn v. Pere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dolby v. Dillman
...condition; in other words, a fee upon condition subsequent. Weber v. Ford Motor Co., 245 Mich. 213, 222 N.W. 198;Rhines v. Consumers' Power Co., 259 Mich. 236, 242 N.W. 898;Avery v. Consumers Power Co., 265 Mich. 696, 253 N.W. 189. In ascertaining the rights of the parties, we will not dete......
-
Johnson v. Ocean Shore Railroad Co.
...Ry. Co., 164 S.C. 427, 162 S.E. 425; Jones v. New Orleans & Northeastern R. Co., 214 Miss. 804, 59 So.2d 541; Rhines v. Consumers' Power Co., 259 Mich. 236, 242 N.W. 898; Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co. v. Mashburn, 235 Miss. 346, 109 So.2d 533; Sun Oil Company v. Emery, 183 Neb. 793, 164 N.W.2......
-
Clark v. City of Grand Rapids
...more significant when we consider that the other 'conditions' do not contain a forfeiture or re-entry clause. See Rhines v. Consumers' Power Co., 259 Mich. 236, 242 N.W. 898. Ordinarily the use of the word 'condition' in a deed does not indicate the existence of a condition subsequent witho......
-
Avery v. Consumers' Power Co.
...reverter in the event of the abandonment of the electric car line for a period of two years has been construed in Rhines v. Consumers' Power Co., 259 Mich. 236, 242 N. W. 898, to be a condition subsequent. In the instant case, the trial court held that plaintiffs could not maintain the acti......