Bernardy v. Colonial & United States Mortgage Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Kingsbury county; Hon. Julian Bennett, Judge. Action by William Bernardy against the Colonial & XJnite.d States Mortgage Company, Limited. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. A fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended. Subd. 2, section 3254, Compüed Laws.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Kingsbury county; Hon. Julian Bennett, Judge. Action by William Bernardy against the Colonial & XJnite.d States Mortgage Company, Limited. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. A fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended. Subd. 2, section 3254, Compüed Laws. Where a person purports by proper instrument to grant real property in fee simple, and subsequently acquires any title or claim of title thereto, the same passes by operation of law to…
1Opinion of the CourtCorson, P. J.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff to quiet his title to a quarter section of land in Kingsbury county. The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed. All the facts in the case were stipulated, and are contained in the agreed statement of facts, which constitutes, in effect, the findings of the court. . There are many facts contained in the agreed statement that we regard as entirely immaterial in the determination of this case. All the facts that we deem material are that in February, 1898, William A. Wilkes made a timber-culture entry for the premises…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Clark v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- City of San Francisco v. LawtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Jackson v. ClevelandMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
- Tefft v. . MunsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Lent v. MorrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Osceola Land Co. v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Adam v. McClintockNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Fullerton Lumber Co. v. TinkerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
- Coykendall v. KelloggNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
- DRD Enterprises, LLC v. FlickemaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.