Riley v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 03 January 1913 |
| Docket Number | 17,916 - (237) |
| Citation | 139 N.W. 361,120 Minn. 210 |
| Parties | WILLIAM C. RILEY v. MARY H. PEARSON |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
William C. Riley made application to the district court for Ramsey county to register title to certain real estate in block 26, St. Paul proper. In his report the examiner of titles mentioned that the westerly 41.06 feet of lot 8 in that block had been registered and that a certificate from the registrar of titles could be filed in the proceeding, so that all matters in relation to easements and rights growing out of agreements might be settled. Mary H. Pearson filed her answer, alleging that she was the owner in fee simple of the westerly 41.06 feet of lot 8 and her title had been duly registered. Daniel Aberle & Sons, a corporation, also answered, claiming a perpetual easement to the use of the arched alleyway in the rear of the building situated on the westerly 41.06 feet of lot 8, and praying that in any decree its rights be recognized and established. The matter was heard before Kelly, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law, among others, found that applicant and Daniel Aberle & Sons were entitled to a perpetual easement to the use of the arched alleyway and the land and space which constituted the arched alleyway in the rear of the store building on the westerly 41.06 feet of lot 8. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, Mary H. Pearson appealed. Affirmed.
Easement.
A deed of real estate construed, and held to convey to the grantee an easement of a passageway over the land of the grantor, and that such easement was permanent, and not limited to the life of the building on the premises.
Registration of title -- failure to disclose persons in interest.
Where in proceedings under the Torrens act to register title, the applicant fails to disclose to the court the names of persons known to him to have an interest in or lien upon the property, and such persons are not named as parties to the proceeding or served with summons, and do not have actual notice of the proceeding, a judgment rendered therein is not binding upon such persons.
Evidence.
Applicant in the proceedings in question herein held to have known before the summons was applied for that her title was subject to permanent easements owned by persons known to her.
Collateral attack.
Such judgment, rendered without jurisdiction of the persons owning such easements, was void as to them, and may be attacked collaterally.
William G. White, for appellant.
A.E. Horn, for respondent Riley.
Charles Bechhoefer, for respondent Daniel Aberle & Sons.
This is a proceeding under the so-called Torrens act to register the title to land in the city of St. Paul. A trial of the issues resulted in a decision that the applicant was entitled to have his title to the land, and to the easements referred to in the decision, registered in him. Defendant Mary H. Pearson moved for a new trial, and from an order denying such motion appealed to this court.
The questions presented here relate: (1) To the character and extent of the easements owned by plaintiff and defendant Daniel Aberle & Sons prior to the decree hereinafter mentioned; (2) to the effect of such decree on such easements. The material facts are as follows:
Alexander Paul, in his lifetime, was the owner of lots 8 and 9, block 26, St. Paul proper. He constructed upon this property a three-story stone building, divided into four separate stores. By his will Alexander Paul devised this property to his children, Charles Paul and Mary Paul, in equal shares. The will was probated in 1867, and the final decree, entered in 1881, assigned the property to the devisees named. Lots 8 and 9 have a frontage on East Third street of 116 feet, and a depth on Robert street of 150 feet. The store building covered the entire frontage of both lots on East Third street, but the division into stores was without any reference to lot lines. Store No. 1, located at the northeast corner of East Third and Robert streets, was constructed on the west 41.06 feet of lot 8. Stores numbered 2, 3, and 4 were located on the remainder of lot 8 and all of lot 9.
In 1881 commissioners appointed by the probate court to partition the estate of Alexander Paul filed their report, in which store No. 1 was assigned in severalty to Charles Paul, and stores Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were assigned in severalty to Mary Paul. In this report, which was confirmed by the court in April, 1881, and duly recorded, store No. 1, together with the land upon which it was located, was set off to Charles Paul, subject to the following easement:
"Subject to the right of use of the arched alleyway through the rear end thereof by the owners and occupants and their heirs and assigns of said stores two, three, and four in said block, for ingress and egress from the same into and from the yard room in the rear of said block, so long as said building shall stand."
The arched alleyway mentioned in the report leads from Robert street to the "yard room" in the rear of stores 2, 3, and 4. Store No. 1 extends the full length of the lot, and this alleyway is a driveway under the second story, with its sides and arched ceiling of stone. It is 10 feet wide on the ground and 16 feet high at the highest point of the arch, and extends the full width of store No. 1 to an open space in the rear of the other stores, which do not extend to the rear of the parcels on which they stand.
Mary Paul died, and her undivided half interest in the property was assigned by the final decree entered January 26, 1888, to the devisees named in her will, Emma and William Paul. On the next day there was recorded a deed from Charles Paul and wife to Emma Paul and William Paul. This deed, dated in November, 1887, purported to convey to the grantees the three stores which had been set off to Mary Paul in the partition proceedings in 1881. In this deed the easement granted was described as follows:
"Together with the right of use of the arched alleyway in the rear of said most westerly store for ingress and egress to and from the yard room in the rear of the stores standing on said lots eight (8) and nine (9)."
The applicant, William C. Riley, and the defendant Daniel Aberle & Sons, have succeeded to the title and interest of Emma and William Paul in two of the stores and parcels of lots 8 and 9 which went to Mary Paul by the partition, Riley owning parcel No. 4 and Daniel Aberle & Sons parcel No. 3, and they are the present owners of the easements. Defendant Mary H. Pearson succeeded to the title of Charles Paul to parcel No. 1, on which store No. 1 and the arched alleyway stands.
The foregoing are the facts that bear on the question whether the easement of the applicant is permanent, or endures only so long as the building stands. The facts that bear on the second question are as follows:
On April 24, 1906, Mary H. Pearson filed in the district court of Ramsey county her application to register the title to the west 41.06 feet of lots 8 and 9, block 26. After the usual reference to the examiner of titles, the latter, on May 8, 1908, filed his report, in which he reported that the applicant was the owner of record of the land sought to be registered, subject to the easement granted by the deed of November, 1887, from Charles Paul, which easement the examiner stated "does not appear to have ever been extinguished." He recommended that the owners and persons in possession of the remainder of lots 8 and 9, covered by the store building, be made defendants in the proceeding. The applicant did not, however, apply for the issuance of a summons in which these owners and persons in possession were named as defendants. Nothing appears to have been done in the proceedings until October 24, 1906, on which day the examiner filed a supplemental report, in which he stated that the title should be registered subject to the right of use of the arched alleyway by the owners and occupants, their heirs and assigns, of the store building, "so long as said building shall stand," and stated that, if this were done, it would not be necessary to make the owners and persons in possession of the remainder of lots 8 and 9 defendants in the proceeding.
On the day following the filing of this supplemental report, the applicant applied for the issuance of a summons, and did not include among those to be named as defendants the owners of the remainder of lots 8 and 9 and the easement, who were, as before stated, William C. Riley and Daniel Aberle & Sons. Riley was at the time a resident of St. Paul, and Daniel Aberle & Sons was a corporation having its place of business and the residence of its officers in St. Paul. The summons was issued as applied for, and did not name as defendants either Riley or Daniel Aberle & Sons, and neither was ever served or notified of the proceedings. The summons was directed to certain named defendants, and to "all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real estate described in the application herein." This summons was published as required by law, and the proceedings came on before the court, which made its decision finding that the applicant was the owner of the real estate described in the application, subject to the easement "so long as said store building shall stand," and directing the entry of judgment accordingly. Judgment was entered, which described the easement in the language of the findings, and ordered the register of titles to register applicant's title, subject to such easement and certain other incumbrances named. The title was so registered, and a certificate issued.
On these facts, the learned trial court decided that the applicant in this proceeding and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial