Opinion ID: 1738151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issue #2: did the railroad acquire a fee simple absolute in the property occupied by its right of way by adverse possession, or is its interest in the right of way merely an easement?

Text: Adverse possession is defined by Sec. 893.09, Stats. 1975, in the following manner: [3] 893.09. Adverse possession, what is. For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by a person claiming title, not founded upon some written instrument or some judgment or decree, land shall be deemed to have been possessed and occupied in the following cases only: (1) When it has been protected by a substantial inclosure. (2) When it has been usually cultivated or improved. [4] Northwoods Development Corp. v. Klement, 24 Wis.2d 387, 129 N.W.2d 121 (1964), which construed the predecessor statute to sec. 893.09, made clear that the statute carries over the common law definition of adverse possession. For possession to be adverse under sec. 893.09, it must be open, notorious, hostile and continuous for twenty years. Id. at 392-394. The railroad ran its trains over the right of way on a daily basis from 1887 to 1973. It constructed and maintained a five-wire fence on either side of the center of the railroad tracks. There is no argument in this case that the railroad's occupation was insufficient to constitute adverse possession. Rather, the question is what is the nature of the interest that the railroad acquired. The majority rule is that a railroad company acquires by prescription or adverse possession only an easement in a right of way. See cases collected at 127 A.L.R. 517. See also 3 Nichols On Eminent Domain, Sec. 11.1. Two basic lines of reasoning have been used by the courts in reaching this result. One view is that the railroad can not acquire an interest in the property broader than the use it makes of the land occupied. Another approach taken by the courts is to analogize to the interest acquired by condemnation. In Michigan Central Railroad Company v. Garfield Petroleum Corp., 292 Mich. 373, 290 N.W. 833, 127 A.L.R. 507 (1940), the issue was whether the railroad could acquire title to mineral rights beneath the right of way. The court commented that railroad corporations are, in a marked degree, to be treated differently from other persons and corporations in regard to the acquisition of land by adverse possession. Property of individuals taken by railroad corporations for the purpose of constructing their roads is, in legal contemplation, taken not for private use, but for a public use, and the tenure of railroads in lands condemned for such a purpose is in the nature of a trust for public use, subject to the supervision of the government. Id. at 375-6. The court also pointed out that [i]f, by right of eminent domain, plaintiff in this case could acquire title to mineral rights, it would be clear that such rights were based upon a showing of necessity, as otherwise there would be no authority for such proceeding under the constitution. If such rights could not be acquired by condemnation because of lack of necessity, it would disprove a title claimed to be acquired by adverse possession. Id. at 377. The court concluded that under the state constitution and statutes, the company's rights would be restricted to possession for railroad purposes. In Galveston, H. and S.A. Ry. Co. v. McIver, 245 S.W. 463 (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1922), the court concluded that the railroad could not hold a fee title by adverse possession: ... the railway company never had any other than a possession for railroad purposes, the mere fencing of its right of way not adding anything to the character of its use and occupancy, nor did that act effect McIver with notice that it was thereafter holding the land adversely to him for all purposes; . . . The court added that even if the railroad had proceeded under the condemnation statutes, the express provisions of the statute would not have permitted the railroad to acquire a fee simple absolute, but only a right of way for railroad purposes. Conceding that a railroad could acquire a fee by grant, the court in Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. American Plate Glass Co., 162 Ind. 393, 68 N.E. 1020, 1021 (1903) said: A prescriptive right, where there is no color of title, cannot be broader than the claim which the user evidences. . . . Ordinarily, at least, there is no user by a railroad company beyond a user for the purposes of right of way. A corporation which is organized under the general railroad statute is authorized to condemn only an easement. See also, Meyer v. Pittsburgh C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 63 Ind. App. 156, 113 N.E. 443 (1916) and Hoffman v. Zollman, 49 Ind. App. 664, 97 N.E. 1015 (1912). The Department of Natural Resources points out that in many of the cases relied upon by the Pollnows, there were statutes or constitutional provisions limiting the interest which a railroad could acquire. The Department urges the court, instead, to adopt the view of Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Bremco Mills, Inc., 288 N.E.2d 868 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, 1971). The court held that in the absence of any forbidding language in the statutes or constitution, a railroad could acquire a fee simple absolute by condemnation. The court also concluded that a railroad could acquire a fee by adverse possession, commenting: . . . . this interpretation of law lends support to the ancient policy of promoting certainty in real estate titles and discouraging obscure and tenuous future interests. Id. at 872. The state argues that Wisconsin has no statutory limitations on acquisition of title by railroads, citing sec. 190.02, Stats. 1975, which grants every public railroad corporation the powers conferred on corporations by ch. 180. Sec. 190.02(3) gives railroads power: To acquire all property necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its railroad and the stations, depot grounds, yards, roundhouses, shops, warehouses, elevators, docks and other accommodations reasonably necessary to accomplish the objects of its incorporation; to lease or otherwise dispose of any part thereof or to sell the same when no longer necessary to its use. In addition, sec. 180.04(4) gives all corporations power as follows: 180.04. General powers. Each corporation, when no inconsistent provision is made by law or by its articles of incorporation, shall have power: . . . (4) To purchase, take, receive, lease, take by gift, devise or bequest, or otherwise acquire, and to own, hold, improve, use and otherwise deal in and with real or personal property, or any interest therein, wherever situated. However, sec. 1851 of the Annotated Statutes of Wisconsin, 1889, limited the interest taken by the railroad in condemnation: Use, when to vest. Section 1851. When no appeal shall be taken from any award, within the time provided by law, and the corporation shall have paid the amount thereof into the court, or filed a receipt therefor, duly signed by the owner, and acknowledged before an officer authorized to take the acknowledgement of deeds, in the office of the clerk of the court, or when, after the determination of such an appeal, the railroad corporation shall have paid into the court the amount of the judgment rendered thereon, or filed a receipt therefor as aforesaid, the clerk of said court shall make a minute of such payment, or of the filing of such receipt, at the foot of the record of the report of such commissioners, in the judgment book of said court; and thereupon the exclusive use of said premises, and every part and parcel thereof, shall vest in such corporation, its successors and assigns, so long as used for railroad purposes, without any other or further act, deed or conveyance; and said record, or a certified copy thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of such title, in all courts and places. (Emphasis added). The note accompanying the statute comments that the law was amended to limit the use for which the corporation takes land for railroad purposes, and the duration of its holding to the time of such use. Moreover, this court said in Falkner v. Northern States Power Co., 75 Wis.2d 116, 125, 248 N.W.2d 885 (1977): A taking for a use that is not public is unconstitutional and beyond the right even of the legislature to accomplish. In determining necessity, neither the legislature nor its delegate is limited to takings that are absolutely or indispensably necessary. Necessary in this context has been construed to mean reasonably necessary, reasonably requisite and proper for the accomplishment of the public purpose for which the property is sought; necessary does not mean absolutely imperative. Id. at 132. In Czarnik v. Sampson Enterprises, Inc., 46 Wis.2d 541, 547, 175 N.W.2d 487 (1970), the court said: ... with respect to eminent domain, the general rule is that only such an estate in the property sought to be acquired may be taken as is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose for which the proceeding is brought. Because eminent domain involves the element of compulsion, that construction must be adopted which, in the event of uncertainty, indefiniteness or ambiguity, leaves the owner with the greatest possible estate. The meaning of the term right of way was construed in Williams v. The Western Union Railway Co., 50 Wis. 71, 5 N.W. 482 (1880). In that case the court construed a deed in which it was held that the railroad took a fee simple in the disputed property. But the court also stated: `Right of way' in its strict meaning is `the right of passage over another man's ground' and in its legal and generally accepted meaning, in reference to a railway, it is a mere easement in the lands of others, obtained by lawful condemnation to public use or by purchase. Mills on Em. Dom. Sec. 110. It would be using the term in an unusual sense, by applying it to an absolute purchase of the fee simple of lands to be used for a railway or any other kind of way. Id. at 76. Thus, while a railroad could get a fee simple in a strip of land under a deed, Williams says that normally a right of way condemned by a railway would only constitute an easement. See also Messer v. Oestreich, 52 Wis. 684, 10 N.W. 6 (1882). Recently, in Hunter v. McDonald, 78 Wis.2d 338, 344, 254 N.W.2d 282 (1977), this court stated that the dominant owner's interest in an easement . . . . is not an estate in land, but rather a right to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property in the owner. 2 Thompson on Real Property, supra, sec. 325. Thus, this court has stated, `A conveyance of a right-of-way over a strip of land two rods wide is a conveyance of a right-of-way over a strip of land two rods wide, not a conveyance of the strip of land itself. Title to the land does not pass, but only the right to pass over it.' Kleih v. VanSchoyck, 250 Wis. 413, 418, 17 N.W.2d 490 (1947). [5] We hold that the only interest the railroad gained in the right of way by adverse possession was an easement.