Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1996No. S032448; No. S032449Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

The question before us is whether a deed conveying “the right of way for the construction, maintenance and operation of a Steam Railroad, upon over and along [a] tract and parcel of land . . . over and through the lands of grantors” transferred an easement or a defeasible fee. The majority correctly conclude that the foregoing language shows a transfer of an easement to the grantee. But their ultimate conclusion that the deed conveyed fee title is erroneous. They reach that conclusion because they are unduly absorbed in certain other language in the deed…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Selby Realty Co. v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Trident Center v. Connecticut General Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API