The Worthington advance., 1891-08-20
BUY YOUR School SUPPLIES At 6 Y SMITHS 0l
School Books, :..:
p
Pencil Tablets, ~ - -. =.
Ink Tablets,
Practice Paper,
Examination Paper,
.@:~S :--~~s --->~- -. Record Books, :@ &C..
Essay Paper.

y Il
DECISION IN THE WORTHING-
TON LIQUOR SUITS.
STATE OF MINNESOTA Mobiles
Sioux City Il St. Paul Railroad Co.
Against
Lawrence Singer, ct. al.
MEMORANDUM.
This is IN action of ejectment bro't
to recover the premises described in the
complaint, and situate in the Village
of Worthington, in said county:
On the 18th day OF July, 1872. the
plaintiff owned the premises described
In the complaint and conveyed them to
one S. c. Highley, and thereafter said
premises passed by devise and the sew
eral mesne conveyances to this defend.
ant, who became the owner of the
same on the 10th day of May, 1883.
The original deed from the plaintiff
to Highley contained a condition sub
sequeDt as follows, that is to say:
"This conveyance Is made and &C.
cepted OH the express condition that
intoxicating liquors shall never bo sold
or vended rs beverage to be drunk on
the premises, and it the same is 80 done.
habitually, with the knowledge and
consent Of the owner, this instrument
shall be void"
The plaintiff complains that this
condition has been violated by the de-
fendant, and hence that the convey
ance containing it has become void,
leaving the title in the plaintiff to the
premises in question.
We have found as fact in the case.
that the plaintiff filed town plat of
the Village of Wortl,ington in the Of
fice Of Register of Deeds for Mobiles
county in May 1872. In making this
finding, We followed the words of the
stipulation 1T the parties on that sub
ject. This is the only evidence in tn.
case touching the title of the plaintiff
t. the premises in question except that
it was the owner OF them when it con .
veyed to Highley on the 18th day Of
July 1872.
We have found, as fact in the case,
that the condition referred to was
openly violated from some time in the
summer of 1888 up to the time of
the bringing Of this action, but it does
not appear that the Plaintiff, for any
particular length of time Lad knowl-
edge of such violation of such
condition.
Perhaps under the evidence in this
Case there would be no doubt of the
plaintiffs right to recover, were it not
for provision of our statute contain
ed in section 46 of chapter 4545, of the
General Statutes Of 1873. That sec.
tion provides, "when [any conditions
annexed to snyJ conveyance of lands,
are merely nominal, and evince no in.
tention Of actual and substantial ben.
eft to the party to whom, or in whose
favor they are to be performed, they
may be wholly disregarded, and fail
ure to perform the same shall, In nc
case, operate as a forfeiture of the
lands conveyed subject thereto"
| The Legislature intended something
by this provision, and evidently de.
signed that mere whim should not
defeat solemn grant of land, even if
such whim did rest in contract at
tached to conveyance. Freedom OF
alienation of land has, in all modern
times, been the policy of the law. AT.
ter land has been once conveyed with
such condition attached to the deed
of conveyance and then years after
passes to another through several
mesne conveyances not containing the
condition, he can hardly he expected
to have any but constructive notice of
it by the record, and hence it is that
the legislature determined that he
should not lose his title to land unless
the condition violated saved some &C.
tual and substantial benefit to the
original grantor.
1t does not appear on the face of the
deed containing the condition in ques.
tion, or in the condition even, that it
saved any actual or substantial benefit
to the grantor.
No evidence, aliunde, appears in the
case from which it could be inferred
that the original grantor in this case
could or would receive any actual and
substantial benefit from the condition
In question had it:been sacredly OBJ
served, unless evidence that it plated
the Village Of Worthinston, and prob.
ably owned it, or a part Of it, at one
time is such evidence. y -.
do not think that it has yet been
determined that lots are any more val
liable in . village where intoxicating
liquors are sold by the permission OF
the law. than in . village where no such
liquor is so sold. Unless it can be said
- fact that property is moro valus-
BILE in . village whore liquor is not sold
than where II: is We do not see, how the
prevention Of tho sale of liquor in the
village by contract annexed to the
grants Of lots therein could work any
actual or substantial benefit to the
Igrantor of q lot. 5. >.5 .., s
Il does not even appear in the evi-