Soukup v. Topka
| Decision Date | 29 June 1893 |
| Citation | 54 Minn. 66 |
| Parties | FRANK SOUKUP <I>vs.</I> THOMAS TOPKA. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Wenzel Drazda owned a saloon and dancing hall forty feet wide by one hundred and one feet deep, fronting south onto Main Street in New Prague, Scott County. He bought on March 27, 1877, of Edson R. Smith and Harriet C. Snow, a piece of land forty feet wide by eighty-two feet deep adjoining his saloon in the rear to the north, and a piece of land on the east of both, twelve feet wide and one hundred and eighty-three feet deep, running from Main Street north the full depth of his saloon, and of the land so purchased. This deed to Drazda correctly described the piece in the rear, and then correctly described this twelve-foot strip, and then contained the following words: "for a road to and from said premises first above described."
Drazda and wife on May 6, 1880, conveyed the saloon and lot in the rear and this twelve-foot strip to defendant, Thomas Topka. Smith and Snow on June 20, 1890, quitclaimed any interest they had in this twelve-foot strip to Anna Wrabeck, who owned a house and lot adjoining on the east. She on January 20, 1891, sold her house and quitclaimed the twelve-foot strip to the plaintiff, who, in April following, brought this action in ejectment to recover possession. He claimed that by these two quitclaim deeds he acquired title to the twelve-foot strip in fee, and that defendant had merely the right to pass to and fro over it from the street to the piece of land in the rear of his saloon. The construction of the deed to Drazda is the sole question in the case.
The issues were tried February 5, 1892. A jury was waived. Findings were filed, and judgment entered for defendant, that he is the owner of this twelve-foot strip of land, and that plaintiff has no right or title to, or interest in it. From this judgment plaintiff appeals. His sixth assignment of error was as follows:
The court erred in excluding the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, Smith, Wrabeck and Drazda, by whom plaintiff endeavored to show the position of the parties, and the surrounding facts and circumstances, under which the deed of Edson R. Smith and Harriet C. Snow to Wenzel Drazda was given.
F. C. Irwin and John W. Lane, for appellant.
Southworth & Coller, for respondents.
Plaintiff's sixth assignment of error is unavailing both because it is too general and indefinite, and also because there were no exceptions to the rulings complained of.
The only point raised by the other assignments of error is that the conclusions of law are not justified by the findings of fact.
Upon the findings, which are all we can consider, the only question is the construction of the deed from Smith and Snow to defendant's grantor, Drazda.
This deed, for the consideration of $400, conveys, first, a tract of land 82 feet long, from north to south, by 40 feet wide, from east to west, and then adds, "and the said parties of the first part do hereby also grant to the said party of the second part a strip of land described as follows, to wit, [then follows description of a tract 183 feet long, from north to south, and 12 feet wide, from east to west,] for a road to and from said premises first above described."
The question is whether, in view of the clause italicized, this deed conveyed an absolute fee, a conditional fee, or a mere easement, in the tract last described. This has to be determined from the language of the deed itself, unaided by anything else, unless it be the fact,...
To continue reading
Request your trial