The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1892-05-05
.Thres;he;'rs!.

braced this condition: "This conveyance is
made and accepted on the express condition that
Intoxicating liquors shall never be sold or vend
ed. as a beverage. to be drunk on the premises.
and il the same Is 50 done, habitnally. with the
sha ad b SS e tGs s
mediate conveyances the land passed by con-
veyanee to the defendant Singer inslss5; aud
been habitually sold. to be drank On these prem
ises, W tn his knowledge aud consent. Judg-
ment was directed and entered for the DEFEND
Stat ISIS being regarded az applicable to and
controlling the decision of tho case. This Sec
ton il as follows:
veyance OF lands are merely nominal AMI eyince
10 intention OF actual or substantial benefit to
the party to whom or in whose favor they are to
and a failure to perform the same shall in no
case operate as u forfeiture Of the lands con-
veyed subject theretO.'
or not the plaintiff has OF ever had any special
interest in the enforcement of the condition,
by reason of its ownership OF other lands or for
amy other reason: The absence OF any finding
concerning that matteris explained in the men,
ion. where i: is stated that there was no cvi-
The language Ot the above recited clause In
the deed is suc:i,that it must be regarded. IL
valid, rs condition subsequent, the breach OF
which would work i forfeiture OF the estate
not OF q covenant. There is no uncertainty or
ambiguity In its meaning, no room for constru-
declared to be. condition upon which the es-
ate is granted. Nor is tho condition repug-
nant to the estate conveyed: The authorities
TO be hereafter cited are applicable here: See
also Farnham vs.. Thompson, 81 Mimi $780, 337.
1t is we'll settled that an owner Of lands may
annex such 2 condition as thi' to his convey
cial and substantial interest III the enforcement
of the condition. Plumb VS.. Tubbs, Al n: Y.
e Hand) ~ Cowell vs.; Springs Co. , 100 u )
m'!g Co. vs.. Marcy, % Conr., 242; = Brien W.
Wethcrell, II. Kan. 6l6; Gray vs.. Blanchard,
Pick. "a, and see pepin County ys: Prinde
I'll WIS., 3ul. Whether such a condition should
be deemed vOia, upon grounds OF public policy,
if it should appear that the granter had no such
interest, we do not d, eide. Upon the face OF the
deed nothing appears which could render void
the express condition upon which the convey
ance Is made and accepted. A grantor may. at
!el>t under some circumstances, etfectually
impO e such condition upon the conveyance Of
The estate, and it is not necessary, i'll order to
| make prtnau focie valid the condition expressed
in the deed. tn It tit. decd shall set forth OF re-
cite the peculiar fac;s which may legally justly
the sranlor iii anIrxins the condition 10 the
grant. On it's face the condition is efectual.
1t attends aud qualities the giant. Tie e,.ale
Is conveyed ana acbtpted in terms subject
| to it, II this condition i to be a,Oided, be
ca,se in the particular case the circumstances
Of the grantor were not SHch "a as to aaho, ize
his estate ii can be only upon affirmative proof
OF the fact relied npon for that purpose. ii not
thus avoided the deed must have effect accn Il
ing to its te ms, to which the parties have
asSanted.
The statIt, above recited does not in our
OpiniOn, Qlaii!y the ;e prOpoS tinS. It's Ian
gua.e is, " wien any conditions annexed 10 IL
grant or 'nvtyance Of lands ure meTrty non,i-
nal, and evlnce no intention OF actual or sub
s,anta benefit, &C., they MY be dl'rcga'led:
This has no relation the SLbjtct burden of
proof, where ~ deuce may be necessary to dis
close the fact bus to the fact itself. either MS
oy the no
ture, or where, The dec not disc losing the fact
to be 50, IL Is made apparent by eAtraneous
G", m ne nhss,cc Of eEee =" av IN
parent from The very nature of the condition
that it was not intended to confer or reserve
son. SucE, for Instance. wouu be Il condition,
annexed to the granting OF fee, that the gran
| Tee should yearly deliver an car of corn to the
grantor, or render any specified but unsubStan-
apply. Again, a condition may be such that
proof beyond the deed itself would be necessary
dtion was or was not subs antialy beneficial.
We will suppose that the owner of a lot conveys
| it with the express condition that no building
dition was not reasonably intended to be, or
| that it was not, actually beneficial to the gran
H h
declare the condition to b. ''mereiy nominal''
and to ''evince 10 intention of actual or sub
stantial benefit" It requires that the court be
further informed as to facts not disclosed by the
| deed, before it can declare the condition to
| which the parties have solemnly agreed to be OF
| no legal effect: II the grantor should be fO nd
| to own adjoining lands which were 80 improved
that the erection Of a building upon the granted
| lot would seriously impair their value and use
| fulneSs. the condition would without doubt be
valid. On the other hand the grantee, to de-
! feat the cOpdition might show that the grautOr
had no actual or prospective interest in the ad
joining premises.a land was in no manner concern
ned in them or their use and that they were un
improved He might thus show him self en-
titled to the benefit OF the statute, II indeed the
statute cHners S1y benefit beyon what the
court erred in disregar.lrg the condition in the
absence Of any proof that the plaintiff had no
special interest in the observance of the condi.
| ton. We have not overlooked the case OF
Barrie vs.. Smith, II Mich. $50. but upon this
point we must decline to follow it.
ginaly, granted attended 1t through the several
succeeding c0nveyances. Tl, successive pur-
chasers bought with constructive notice of it.
If by reason Of the breach of the condition
subsequent the plaintiff had a right to re-enter
| it was not necessary that the common law cere-
precedent to the prosecution Of an action to re-
cover the possession Of the property. Plumb
VS. Stubbs, supra Cornelius vs.. Twins. 2 Dutch.
376 Ruth vs. Rock Island 81 U. $. 693; Lessee Of
Rngge VS.. Ellis, Bay 107,lll and see Adams on
E1ectment. TO- Whatever necessity there may
reason for 1t ceased with the disappearance of
the fraction and devices resOrted to- upon which
to found the action Of ejectment. Judgment
reversed. DICKINSON, j.
TNOX HEREI