37 Minn. 338 | Minn. | 1887
The plaintiff alleges actual possession of the real estate described, and asks that the adverse claim of defendants be determined. The defendants’ answer admits plaintiff’s posses
1. Under the deed in question, E. A. Groff acquired title to an undivided half of the premises, and was entitled to the possession thereof as tenant in common. His possession was not, therefore, adverse to the owners of the remaining interest. There is no evidence tending to show an ouster and adverse possession until the sale and pur•chase under which plaintiff claims. Lowry v. Tilleny, 31 Minn. 500, (18 N. W. Rep. 452.) If by virtue of the contract, and the delivery ■of the deed thereunder, the legal title to the other undivided half, by fiction of law, became vested in the'heirs of A. G. Groff, then •Catharine C. Groff, under the existing statutes, was entitled to a life-estate, and the transfer of her interest in the contract and premises, as heir-at-law, simply passed such life-estate in the premises, and there was and could be no adverse possession as to the remaining heirs. 1 Washb. Real Prop. *97; 7 Wait, Act. & Def. 258, and •cases. The statute of limitations cannot, therefore, be invoked in this action as a bar to the defendants’ legal rights in the property, if any they have.
2. It is contended by the defendants’ counsel that the contract was by itself operative and effectual to pass the title to the Groffs, because by its terms it purports to grant and sell the same in prcesenti. But the intention of the parties must be gathered from the whole instrument, and though it may in one part use the formal and apt words of conveyance, yet if, from other parts of the instrument taken and compared together, it appears that a mere agreement for a conveyance is ail that was intended, the intent must prevail. Jackson v. Myers, 3 John. 388, 396, (3 Am. Dec. 504.) Tested by this rule, it is too clear to need any argument that this instrument is but an executory contract to convey the land upon the performance of certain conditions.
3. The most important question in the case is in respect to the ■nature and effect of the delivery of the deed by Decker to Snell. We ■do not think it material that Snell was his agent and attorney in fact in making the sale: he was a stranger to the deed, and might hold it in escrow, or it might be delivered to him as the deed of the grantor
Order reversed.
Berry, J., because of illness, took no pai’t in this case.