St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-01-11
ACCORDING TO INTENT.
Such Is to Be the Construction
Put on Deeds, Says the Supreme
Cnurt

Such Is to Be the Construction
Put on Deeds, Says the Supreme
Court.
ga deed is to be construed according
to the intention of the grantor without
reference to its language, unless some
principle of law is violated by such con-
struction." Such is the cO.nmOn-sense
and plain ruling of the supreme court
in the somewhat famous case of Charles
Witt, respondent, VS.. The st. Paul &
Northern Pacific Railway Company, APP
pellant. Technical rules are not to be
so applied as to defeat the manifest in
tention of the parties. To show lad
verse possession" when held by differ
ent persons, it must also be shown that
privity existed between them. The
syllabus is as follows:
Charles Witt, respondent, VS.. The st.
Paul 81 Northern Pacific Railway
Company, appellant.
SyllabuS-Where, in condemnation
proceedings by railroad company, a
village lot is appropriated under the de-
ScriptiOn thereof as designated by a
plat and survey of the same, the CON-
pany takes preSumptively to the middle
of the street. And subject to the pub
lie easement and the control of the
proper public authorities, the company
acquires the same interest in that portion
of the lot so taken, lying in the street,
as to the remainder thereof, and may
apply it to the same uses. Actual pos
session is sufficient evidence of title to
enable the party in possession of land
to maintain trespasS against a stranger.
1t is a cardinal rule of construction
to ascertain and give effect,
if practicable, to the intention
of the parties as gathered from the Ian
guage of deed, the situation of the
parties and the subject matter. All
parts OF the instrument are to be con-
Sidered together, and the construction is
to be upon the whole. if the different
parts can stand together. The words
OF deed are to be taken as the grant
Or'S, and any ambiguity or uncertainty
but technical rules of construction are
not to be so applied as to defeat the
manifest intention of the parties.
Where grant is in general terms, a
particular exception is good. And so
also general description of land con-
veyed by deed may be limited and re-
strained by particular description.
Where grantOr and his wife who had
been i'll possession without color
OF Title or certain village lots
Tin connection with others in
the same block held under tax title
which appeared of record under cir
cumstances tending To show adverse
possession thereof, the lots being Situ-
ated in and a part of block 10 according
to the plat of certain addition), exc
cuted deed to purchaser containing
the following description, viz: "All Of
blocks 10 and IL" Gn the same addition)
intending to convey only those lots III
said blocks 10 and IL which have been
quitclaimed to the parties of the first
part, or either of them, by conveyance
of tax titles,' held, that there passed
by the deed only such lots as were ac-
quired under the conveyance of tax
titles. To make case of adverse pos
session which will be recognized as
equivalent to title, it must have been
continued for the statutory time under
the original hostile entry, and each sue
ceeding occupant must show title under
his predecessor, and his possession be
referable to such entry. Judgment re-
verSed and case remanded.
VANDERBURGH, j.