Stroup v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 13 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 36926,36926 |
| Citation | Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. App. 1976) |
| Parties | Junior C. STROUP and Eula Mae Stroup, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Noel C. JOHNSON and Mrs. Noel C. Johnson, Defendants-Respondents. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles G. Hyler, Farmington, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Guilfoil, Symington & Petzall, J. J. Shoemake, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants Mr. and Mrs. Noel C. Johnson on a suit filed by plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Junior C. Stroup to quiet title in a 15 foot wide easement used as a passageway for livestock across the highway frontage of plaintiffs' land. Plaintiffs contend this easement terminated in 1929 when Mr. and Mrs. William A. Smith sold the land to which it attached, and therefore defendants own no interest in the property. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
All of the land involved in the dispute was originally owned by Mr. and Mrs. Smith. In 1921 they granted an eighty-three acre tract to Frank W. and Henry E. Bieser, plaintiffs' remote predecessors in title. In that deed the following reservation is contained 'First parties reserve for themselves a strip of land 15 feet wide along the South side of the above mentioned County Road, beginning at the North West corner of the above mentioned Eighty (80) acres, and extending in a Northeastwardly direction to a point opposite the East abutement (sic) of a Concrete Bridge, across the said County Road, which bridge was built large enough to permit of the passage of stock under said road, and the strip of land hereby reserved is to be held by first parties, as a passage-way for stock between the tract of land lying on the North side of the road, and the tract in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Twenty-Eight (28) now held by first parties so long as they own both tracts as above mentioned, and should they sell either of the above mentioned tracts, so that they do not require the use of this 15 foot strip as a passage-way for stock, then the title to the same shall pass to and be vested in second parties, their heirs or assigns.'
In 1929 Mr. and Mrs. Smith conveyed their remaining land to Rosa B. Manley through whom defendants claim title. The 1929 deed specifically mentions the easement as a part of the conveyance. At the time of the trial of this case, defendants Johnson owned 35 acres on the north side and 50 acres on the south side of the county road. The easement commenced at the northeast corner of the 50 acre tract. This corner is south of the road and across from the southwest corner of the 35 acre tract. The easement extended eastwardly across the north side of the 9.677 acre Stroup tract adjacent to the south side of the county road to a bridge on the road. This bridge, used as an underpass, furnished a way for the stock to travel north to the 35 acre tract from the east end of the easement.
As stipulated at trial, the only issue to be resolved was whether the reservation of the easement in the 1921 deed from Smith to Bieser created an easement which in turn was conveyed through a chain of title to defendants Johnson.
Plaintiffs assert the easement was determinable on the condition that Mr. and Mrs. Smith should sell either or both of their tracts of land connected by the passage-way. Under this interpretation, the easement terminated when the Smiths sold the tracts on both sides of the road to Manley in 1929. Defendants claim the easement has not terminated since the condition expressed when the easement was created is that it would terminate when either of the tracts...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Heigert v. Londell Manor, Inc., 59304
...See Restatement of Property, §§ 241-248 (1940). We must ascertain the intent of the writer, here the conveyor, Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Mo.App.1976). We take people as they are and language as it is; and, thus, even though the written words may not be ambiguous, we may consid......
-
Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc.
...deed which reserves an easement, we consider the clause as a whole and give controlling effect to the parties' intent. Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Mo.App.1976). We agree with plaintiff that this clause was intended to reserve an easement in the land over which the sidetrack ran ......
-
Brown v. Redfern
...In interpreting the meaning of a clause in a deed reserving an easement, the intent of the parties is controlling. Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 711 (Mo.App.1976); Stotzenberger v. Perkins, 332 Mo. 391, 58 S.W.2d 983, 986 (1933). The evidence introduced at trial indicates that George Meyer ......
-
Allee v. Kirk
... ... Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 711, 712(1-3) (Mo.App.1976). Such easements, being appurtenant to the second tier lots, go with the conveyance of those lots ... ...
-
9.34 Transfer, Termination, and Abandonment
...S.W.2d 356, 362 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) Three-O-Three Invs. Inc. v. Moffitt, 622 S.W.2d 736, 739–40 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981) Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Mo. App. E.D. 1976) When the appurtenant easement exists, however created, it passes with the dominant tenement unless it is expressl......
-
Section 19 Transfer, Termination, and Abandonment
...S.W.2d 356, 362 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) Three‑O‑Three Invs., Inc. v. Moffitt, 622 S.W.2d 736, 739–40 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981) Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Mo. App. E.D. 1976) When the appurtenant easement exists, however created, it passes with the dominant tenement unless it is express......