Title: Condon National Bank of Coffeyville v. Krigel
Citation: 176 Kan. 279, 270 P.2d 232
Docket Number: 39,336
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 8, 1954

176 Kan. 279 (1954)
270 P.2d 232
THE CONDON NATIONAL BANK OF COFFEYVILLE, Coffeyville, Kansas, a Corporation, Appellee,
v.
E. KRIGEL, Appellant.
No. 39,336

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 8, 1954.
*280 Jack Z. Krigel, of Kansas City, Mo., argued the cause, and A.R. Lamb, and Clement A. Reed, both of Coffeyville, and Herbert M. Krigel, of Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Dallas W. Knapp, Charles D. Knapp, and T. Richard Liebert, all of Coffeyville, argued the cause, and Frank W. Liebert, of Coffeyville, was with them on the briefs for the appellee.
The Opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
This action was instituted in the district court under the declaratory judgment statute to determine and adjudicate the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant to a portion of a lot, located in the city of Coffeyville and owned by plaintiff, upon which one-half of a division stairway was resting. Judgment was rendered in accord with plaintiff's theory of the case and the defendant appeals.
The pleadings are not in question and require little consideration. For the present all that need be said respecting them is that the controversy responsible for the filing of the action arose by reason of claims asserted by defendant to the involved real estate and the stairway resting thereon on the basis of an easement by written grant, an easement by prescription, or in the alternative, the existence, under conditions and circumstances estopping the plaintiff from revoking it, of a license to use such property, all of which claims were denied by plaintiff on asserted theories that whatever rights defendant may have theretofore had in such property were based on a revocable implied license which had been terminated and revoked prior to the institution of the action.
During the course of the trial by the court, and on motion of the plaintiff that an election as to defenses be made, the defendant announced that it elected to stand upon its defenses of a written grant and estoppel, thereby abandoning prescription. At the close of such trial the court, at the request of defendant, made findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact reveal the contentions of the parties as disclosed by the pleadings and the facts given credence and found by the trial court to exist on the basis of the evidence adduced. On that account they will be stated at length in lieu of the general factual statement usually to be found in an opinion of the events, conditions and circumstances giving rise to the controversy therein involved. Such findings of fact, omitting portions of no particular significance to the issues, read:
"16....
Ordinarily conclusions of law, which as has been heretofore indicated were returned by the trial court along with its findings of fact, would be quoted at length. However, for reasons to be presently disclosed, that action is not required on this occasion. It suffices to say that after making such findings and conclusions, and pursuant thereto, the trial court rendered judgment against the defendant, substantially in accord with its conclusions of law, wherein it declared the rights of the parties to the real estate to be as follows:
Following the rendition of the foregoing judgment defendant filed its motion for a new trial. Sometime later that motion was overruled. On the same date the trial court, which theretofore had taken under advisement the plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's cross-petition asking damages for the revocation of what the court had previously found to be an implied license, sustained such demurrer. Thereupon defendant gave notice and perfected his appeal from the judgment in favor of plaintiff declaring the rights of the parties, from the order overruling the motion for new trial, and from the judgment sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to his cross-petition.
*286 The first and principal proposition relied on by appellant as grounds for reversal of the judgment is that the party wall agreement and the quitclaim deed, each executed and recorded in 1884, the contents of which, we may add, are accurately set forth in findings of fact Nos. 8 and 9, constitute an easement by grant to the division stairway described in the findings. In connection with this contention it is suggested, although not strenuously argued, that notwithstanding the express terms of the first agreement relate only to a party wall and contain no specific reference to the stairway, the inclusion of the phrase "that each party shall have the right to the free use of said wall and every part thereof to the extent that it may be necessary or convenient to the erection, construction or maintenance and occupancy of any buildings or improvements upon said lots," warrants this court in holding the parties intended the granting clause of that instrument to include a stairway as well as a party wall. We do not agree. To construe such instrument in accord with appellant's suggestion would result in our rewriting the instrument and including something therein which the parties themselves did not see fit to put there at the time they executed it.
Nor are we willing to hold as a matter of law, as appellant would have us do, that the deed (described in finding No. 9) quitclaiming all the right, title and interest of the grantor Lang in property which he had never owned, i.e., lot 3, is to be construed as a written grant of an easement to other property owned by him, but not mentioned or described therein, even though such instrument recites that it is intended, among other things, as a receipt for all claims the grantor might have on that portion of the division wall and stairway erected on the line between property conveyed by the quitclaim deed and the property owned by him. Standing alone, and without reformation of any kind or character, the very most that can be said for such instrument, and for that matter for it when construed in connection with the party wall agreement, is that the two instruments, when construed together, may afford some basis for concluding that the quitclaim deed was intended to convey the grantor's interest in the portion of the party wall and stairway located on his own property, i.e., lot 2, as well as his interest in the party wall and stairway located on lot 3.
Assuming, without deciding the point for there is much to be said to the contrary, that the language of the deed on which appellant relies to support his position is sufficient to warrant a construction *287 of the terms of that instrument on the basis of intention, it must be conceded such language is so ambiguous that the question whether the parties intended it should have the import appellant seeks to give it is a factual one to be determined by the trier of facts which, it is to be noted, under the express terms and provisions of its findings Nos. 13, 23 and 26, found that the stairway mentioned in the deed had reference to an entirely different stairway and that the division stairway here in question was not even constructed until some six or seven years after the date of the execution of such deed and the party wall agreement. Obviously, unless such findings are to be overthrown there is no sound basis for holding appellant had any right to the property in question under an easement by written grant.
No rule is better established in this jurisdiction than the one that findings of fact supported by substantial competent evidence are conclusive and will not be disturbed on appellate review even though the record discloses some evidence which might have warranted the trial court in making findings to the contrary. See, e.g., Doman Hunting &amp; Fishing Ass'n v. Doman, 159 Kan 439, 443, 155 P.2d 438; Bradbury v. Wise, 167 Kan. 737, 208 P.2d 209; Oetken v. Shell, 168 Kan. 244, 248, 212 P.2d 329; Thom v. Thom, 171 Kan. 651, 653, 237 P.2d 250; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 279, 239 P.2d 935; Tucker v. Hankey, 173 Kan. 593, 250 P.2d 784; Freeman v. Keltner, 175 Kan. 37, 259 P.2d 228; Spencer v. Supernois, 176 Kan. 135, 268 P.2d 946.
Touching the sufficiency of the evidence to support the foregoing findings on the point now under consideration it may be stated that upon examination of the cold printed record we are inclined to the view our findings might not have been the same as those of the trial court. However, we are aware of the fact that in making such findings that tribunal was in a position to observe the witnesses and had a much better opportunity to pass upon the credence to be given their testimony. We are also mindful the rule has application regardless of how we construe the evidence so long as there is testimony to support its findings. Moreover, we are convinced there is such evidence of record. Therefore, notwithstanding appellant's contention to the contrary, we are constrained to hold the trial court's findings Nos. 13, 23 and 26, to the effect that no written grant of an easement has ever been made by the owners of lot 2 must be upheld.
*288 Having reached the conclusion just announced, since the claim appellant had acquired an interest in lot 2 and the portion of the stairway resting thereon by an implied easement and/or by prescription is no longer in the case, it is apparent the issues remaining for decision relate to rights acquired by appellant under and by virtue of an oral license to use the portion of the division stairway resting on the appellee's land.
In view of what has already been stated the next error assigned by appellant to the effect the trial court committed reversible error in permitting parol testimony to contradict documentary evidence requires little if any attention. All arguments advanced with respect thereto are based on his erroneous assumption the terms of the party wall agreement and the quitclaim deed were clear and unambiguous. This court is committed to the rule (See Stapleton v. Hartman, 174 Kan. 468, 471, 257 P.2d 113; Hatcher's Kansas Digest [Rev. Ed.], Evidence, § 185; West's Kansas Digest, Evidence, § 448) that parol evidence is admissible to explain the terms of vague, uncertain and ambiguous contracts. It follows, that where  as here  the particular terms of the agreement relied on are of that character, a claim that evidence explanatory of the intention of the parties in the use of such terms is admitted in violation of the parol evidence rule has no merit.
The next question raised by appellant is predicated upon the premise the license under which he acquired the right to use the involved property was irrevocable. The gist of all arguments advanced in support of his position on this point is that such license was given for a valuable consideration, that in reliance thereon he expended money and labor in the maintenance of the stairway and that therefore such license, even if it were not so at its inception, was irrevocable. It must be conceded that where the facts on which appellant bases his claim are admitted the rule is as he contends. (See e.g., Kastner v. Benz, 67 Kan. 486, 73 Pac. 67; Smyre v. Kiowa County, 89 Kan. 664, 132 Pac. 209; Page v. Lydic, 123 Kan. 122, 254 Pac. 316; Stanolind Pipe Line Co. v. Ellis, 142 Kan. 102, 106, 45 P.2d 846.) The difficulty from his standpoint is that the trial court refused to find facts which would bring him within the scope or application of such rule. Indeed it found directly to the contrary. See finding No. 26 where, on the basis of controverted but nevertheless substantial evidence, it found in clear and unequivocal language that appellant as well as his predecessors in title had expended no *289 money in reliance upon, nor paid any consideration for, any right to use a part of lot 2 to support a stairway.
Nothing would be added to our reports if we were to detail or set forth at length the evidence on which the trial court based its findings of fact. It suffices to say that after a careful review of the entire record we find some evidence, although it must be conceded that in most cases the testimony was highly conflicting, to sustain each and all of such findings of fact, including findings as to nonuse of the division stairway and the licensee's lack of need for the same, of which the appellant bitterly complains on the ground there was a complete lack of evidence to support them. In that situation, as we have heretofore indicated, it is not the province of this court to weigh the testimony but its duty to adopt the findings as made and give them full weight and credence in determining the rights of the parties. When that is done we have little difficulty in concluding and are constrained to hold the conclusions of law and the heretofore quoted judgment in the form of declarations outlining the rights of the parties under the pleadings and evidence as made and rendered by the trial court must be upheld.
Heretofore no specific mention has been made of errors assigned in connection with the overruling of the motion for new trial and the sustaining of appellee's demurrer to appellant's cross-petition. The first of these claims of error is based on the same contentions heretofore discussed and disposed of and hence requires no further consideration. The second is dependent entirely upon the legal status of appellant's rights in the involved property and ceased to have merit upon the adverse determination of contentions advanced by him respecting them.
The judgment is affirmed.