Opinion ID: 2459258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Description omitted)

Text: To Have and To Hold unto said Railway Company forever, subject however, to the following conditions: 1st. The property herein granted is granted for the use as a railway and on condition that the grantor be released from his subscription of $500.00 in freights. 2nd. The said Railway Company shall erect and maintain on the south end of the above Lot 77-A a suitable station building of modern architectural design, similar to the railway station of the said Company in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. 3rd. The said Company shall, at its own expense, remove from the land herein conveyed, the buildings located thereon at the present time, to such other ground in the neighborhood as the said L. F. Quinn shall select. 4th. That whenever the property herein conveyed shall cease to be utilized for the purposes hereinabove set our, for a period of six months, then this deed shall be void and the land herein granted shall revert to and become the property of the said L. F. Quinn. In Witness Whereof,   . By deeds of April 30, 1901 and March 31, 1909, Quinn and wife conveyed to defendant's predecessors in title, the land adjacent to the tracts in question and lying to the west. The Frisco eventually became the owner of the title which the grantee in each of the three deeds had obtained. A depot building was constructed on the land here in question and was used as such until September, 1965, when the Frisco ceased operating in Poplar Bluff. The depot building was subsequently rented for a time to the United States Post Office Department. No question is here raised as to the fact of abandonment by the railroad. This suit was filed October 28, 1966, by the heirs at law of Quinn, seeking to quiet title in themselves against the claim of Frisco on the grounds that, by reason of the termination of the use of the property for railroad purposes, the land reverted to them by virtue of the reverter clause in the Quinn 1901 deed. The railroad filed an answer and counterclaim, asserting that title to the land vested in it as the owner in fee of the adjacent property on the west, the east side of the tract being bounded by a public street. The case was submitted on a stipulation of facts, setting out essentially the above matters and the trial court found for plaintiffs. The railroad appealed. By reason of various considerations, including the early tendency to view with disfavor corporate ownership of real estate (1 Elliott on Railroads, 3rd ed., § 452, p. 686), the turbulent early history of railroad development (Coates & Hopkins Realty Co. v. Kansas City T. Ry. Co., 328 Mo. 1118, 43 S.W.2d 817, 821), and the peculiar physical characteristics of railroad property, particularly the right of way (Brown v. Weare, 348 Mo. 135, 152 S.W. 2d 649, 656, 136 A.L.R. 286), a definite policy has been established in this state which particularly controls the nature and extent of the interest of railroads in real estate. Thus, where the legislative charter of a railroad corporation authorized it to obtain the fee simple title upon condemnation, in Kellogg v. Malin, 50 Mo. 496, the court held that    notwithstanding the language used, nothing more than an easement passed to the road, giving it perpetual and continuous title so long as it used the land for the purpose for which it was taken,   . 50 Mo. 500. Such limitation upon the right of a railroad to acquire land by condemnation was incorporated in the Constitution of 1875, Article II, § 21. Constitution of Missouri, 1945, Article I, § 26, V.A.M.S. The 1853 general railroad corporation law limited the right of a railroad to hold land taken on voluntary grant to the purposes of such grant only. Laws of 1853, p. 121, § 28, subpar. 2d, p. 134. Such a limitation was in effect at the time of the deed here in question. § 1035, RSMo 1899, now § 388.210(2), RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Some earlier cases gave rise to the question of the right of a railroad company, in any event, to take the fee in land. See Chouteau v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 122 Mo. 375, 22 S.W. 458, 30 S.W. 299; Allen v. Beasley, 297 Mo. 544, 249 S.W. 387. However, in Coates & Hopkins Realty Co. v. Kansas City T. Ry. Co., supra, the court held that a railroad corporation might,    upon a valuable consideration, by agreement and purchase and by a deed in fee, take the fee in land so purchased   . 43 S.W.2d l. c. 823. The court expressly noted the exception of voluntary grants, lands condemned for railroad tracks, and conveyances of rights of way only to railroad corporations. Idem. In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Griffith, 342 Mo. 229, 114 S.W. 2d 976, the court concluded that a conveyance of land to a railroad company for right of way purposes only, irrespective of the consideration, passes only an easement,   . 114 S.W.2d 980. Brown v. Weare, 348 Mo. 135, 152 S.W.2d 649, 136 A.L.R. 286, held the same rule applicable to a conveyance to a railroad for station grounds. The court stated: It reasonably follows from our statutory scheme that no different theory exists as to station grounds from the one applicable to a right of way where such purposes are set out in the deed or where limitations on the use of the grant are imposed by the deed. Therefore, from the express terms of the deed under consideration, besides from the fact that it was a voluntary grant, we find merely an easement was granted in the station grounds. 152 S.W.2d 654 [12, 13]. This conclusion is here controlling. The deed clearly limited the use of the property to railroad purposes, and specifically for a depot. Such limitation caused the deed to convey only an easement to the railroad. The fee remained in Quinn as the owner of the adjacent property. His subsequent conveyance of the adjacent property carried with it his interest in the property over which the easement had been granted. Brown v. Weare, supra. Respondents do not contest the railroad's position that the deeds to the adjacent tracts conveyed fee simple title to the grantee. There are distinctions between the deed here and that in Brown v. Weare, but we do not find them significant. The primary difference, of course, is the reverter clause, present in Quinn's deed but not in Weare's. However, in view of the fact that the conveyance was for railroad purposes, the clause in the Quinn deed did nothing more than fix the period of nonuser which would cause the interest of the railroad in the property to terminate. State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Jacob, et al., Mo.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 22, 24 [1]. The respondents have sought to defend the trial court's judgment solely on the grounds that the conveyance by Quinn was not a voluntary grant, within the meaning of § 388.210(2), supra. However, this position overlooks the fact that, under Brown v. Weare, the expression or limitation of the use to which the property was to be put is likewise a decisive factor. By reason of the policy considerations peculiarly applicable in transfers of interest in real estate to railroad corporations, cases relied upon by respondents involving deeds to other entities, such as school districts (Board v. Nevada School District, 363 Mo. 328, 251 S.W.2d 20, and Nowlin v. Columbia School District, Mo.Sup., 401 S. W.2d 394) and banking corporations (White v. Kentling, 345 Mo. 526, 134 S.W. 2d 39), are not controlling on the nature and extent of the estate created by the deed here in question. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment quieting title in the appellant as against the claim of the respondents.