Sanborn v. City of Minneapolis
Decision Date | 25 June 1886 |
Citation | 35 Minn. 314,29 N.W. 126 |
Parties | SANBORN v CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND OTHERS. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Fourth district, Hennepin county, denying motion for a new trial.
Ueland, Shores & Holt, for appellant, Swan E. Sanborn.
Judson N. Cross, Rea, Kitchell & Shaw, and Snyder & Jamison, for respondents, City of Minneapolis and others.
The first question in this case is whether the deed (Exhibit B) from Johnson to Strobeck conveyed the fee of, or only an easement in, the premises in controversy. It purports to be a deed between Johnson and wife, parties of the first part, and Strobeck, “and others who do and may own property along the within-described alley,” parties of the second part, conveying to the said parties of the second part the premises in question, which are declared to be “deeded for alley purposes; and whenever it ceases to be kept and used for said alley purposes this title will be null and void.” Some parts of the instrument, if considered alone, would indicate a conveyance of the premises in fee. But if we adopt a cardinal rule in the construction, 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 same conclusion to which the learned district judge came, viz., 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.
In the first place, it is evident that what was granted was not intended to be an extensive right of interest in Strobeck, but in him, and “others who do or may own property along the within-described alley.” Five distinct tenements are here referred to, viz., the property “along the within-described alley,” and the land described in the deed, and here called an “alley.” A right of way as an alley was evidently intended to be imposed over the latter tenement for the benefit of the former. The right granted excluded the idea of the grantees taking actual possession. The right was merely one of accommodation (a right to pass over) as distinguished from those which are directly profitable. The grantee of such a right is not the owner or occupant of the estate over which the right of way is given. Such being the effect of this deed, Johnson remained the owner of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nieting v. Blondell
...... Arthur Chapman & McDonough, Lommen & Cole and John P. Lommen, Minneapolis, for appellants. DeParcq, Anderson Perl & Hunegs and Richard G. Hunegs, ...574. And, in 1886, in Sanborn v. City of Minneapolis, 35 Minn. 314, 29 N.W. 126 (1886), we stated that '(t)he state cannot be ......
-
Chun King Sales, Inc. v. St. Louis County
...... United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U.S. 466, 78 S.Ct. 474, 2 L.Ed.2d 424; United States v. Township of Muskegon, 355 ...Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, 250 Minn. 130, 84 N.W.2d 282, involving an action to ... Sanborn v. City of Minneapolis, 35 Minn. 314, 29 N.W. 126; and Foster v. City of Duluth, 120 Minn. 484, 140 ......
-
Nusbaum v. Blue Earth County
...... Berman v. Minnesota State Agric. Soc'y, 93 Minn. 125, 127, 100 N.W. 732, 732 (1904); Sanborn v. City of Minneapolis, 35 Minn. 314, 29 N.W. 126 (1886). However, there were several exceptions ......
-
State v. Minnesota Power & Light Co.
...... company is not an occupant of the land over which the right-of-way was acquired, citing Sanborn v. City of Minneapolis, 35 Minn. 314, 29 N.W. 126. In our opinion, the power company was the ......