JACKSON et al., Executors, v. SORRELLS

Supreme Court of Georgia1956-04-09No. 19251

212 Ga. 333

Summary · law.co

Holding. The deed conveyed only an easement to construct and operate a railroad, not title to the land, and the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the plaintiffs' petition. The judgment is affirmed.

The plaintiffs sought to establish ownership of land based on a deed granted to a railroad company. The court examined whether the deed conveyed full title to the land or merely an easement (a limited right to use the land for railroad purposes). The plaintiffs relied on a prior case where a similar deed was found to convey title, but that earlier deed lacked the restrictions present here.

The court identified several factors distinguishing this case. The grantor had reserved the right to cultivate the land outside the actual road bed and required the railroad to maintain stock gaps. The consideration paid was nominal, the conveyed land formed a strip through the middle of the grantor's property, and the deed explicitly stated the land was for railroad use only. Comparing these circumstances to prior cases involving nearly identical provisions, the court concluded the parties intended to create an easement rather than transfer ownership, allowing the grantor to retain use of the land not occupied by the railroad infrastructure.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a railroad deed conveyed full title or merely an easement
Effect of grantor's reserved cultivation rights on deed interpretation
Significance of nominal consideration in determining property interest transferred
Impact of a severed land strip with no access between remaining parcels

Procedural posture

The trial court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiffs' petition claiming land ownership, and the plaintiffs appealed that dismissal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Wyatt, Presiding Justice.

The plaintiffs in error claim the land in question as successors in title under the deed above set out. Therefore, it follows that, if the deed does not convey title, plaintiffs in error have no claim to the land in question. This court has many times been called upon to construe deeds such as the one here involved, conveying an interest in land to railroad companies for railroad purposes. It has often been pointed out that the question of whether the interest conveyed was an easement or title to the land was always a difficult one, and that each case was dependent upon its own particular facts and circumstances.

The plaintiffs in error cite Jackson v. Rogers, 205 Ga. 581 (54 S. E. 2d 132), in which the deed there under consideration was held to convey title, as controlling. However, the deed there involved contained no reservation to the grantor of any right in the land in question. In the instant case, the grantor reserved the right to cultivate the land up to the road bed and required the railroad to keep up all stock gaps. In this respect, the deed in the instant case is similar to the deeds considered in the cases of Gaston v. Gainesville &c. Electric Ry. Co., 120 Ga. 516 (48 S. E. 188), Georgia &c. Ry. v. Swain, 145 Ga. 817 (90 S. E. 44), Rogers v. Pitchford, 181 Ga. 845 (184 S. E. 623), and Askew v. Spence, 210 Ga. 279 (79 S. E. 2d 531). In each of those cases it was held that the deed conveyed an easement over the lands of the grantor.

While it is true that no deed involved in either of the cases cited above was identical with that here involved, the rulings therein made are applicable in principle to the question in the instant case. The deed considered in Gaston v. Gainesville &c. By. Co., supra, presented a weaker case for holding that only an easement was conveyed than that here involved. The same may be said of each of the other cases above cited. It was clearly the intention of the parties to the deed in the instant case at the time it was executed to convey and to receive an easement to construct and operate a railroad over the lands of the grantor, and that the grantor should retain the use of the land not actually used as a road bed. As indicating this intention, the fact that the consideration was nominal, that the grantor retained the right to cultivate the land not in actual use as a roadbed, that the grantee was required to keep up stock gaps, that the deed recites that the land is conveyed for use as a railroad, that the land conveyed was a strip out of the middle of the grantor’s tract with no access between them, and other facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction should be considered. After a careful consideration of all these and other facts and the cases above cited, it clearly appears that the deed here involved was intended to convey and did convey only an easement to construct and operate a railroad over the land in question. It follows it was not error to sustain a demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.