# Quinn v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

> Supreme Court of Missouri · April 14, 1969 · 439 S.W.2d 533

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777391

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul D. QUINN, Charles A. Quinn, Agnes Quinn Kennedy, and Mrs. Carl Laurent, Respondents, v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY CO., Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** April 14, 1969
- **Citations:** 439 S.W.2d 533; 1969 Mo. LEXIS 866
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Henley
- **Judges:** Welborn, Henley
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777391

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the legislative policy established in Missouri arising from factors peculiar to railroads

## Opinion text

HENLEY, Judge
(concurring).
While I dissented from the majority opinion in Division, I have concluded, since transfer of the case to Banc, to concur for the following reasons. The subsequent conveyance by Quinn of the adjacent property raises a “presumption of grant” of the underlying fee in the depot property in the absence of words in that conveyance showing a different intention. Grant v. Moon, 128 Mo. 43 , 30 S.W. 328 ; Snoddy v. Bolen, et al., 122 Mo. 479 , 25 S.W. 932 , 24 L.R.A. 507 ; Brown v. Weare, 348 Mo. 135 , 152 S.W.2d 649, 654-655 [14-15], 136 A.L.R. 286 . See also 9 University of Kansas City Law Review 113. The attempt by Quinn in the fourth “condition” of his deed of April 9, 1901, to cause the “land” to “revert” to him upon abandonment of the easement was ineffective as against Quinn’s subsequent deeds conveying the adjoining land since the latter expressed no intent to retain the underlying fee in the easement property. See Snoddy v. Bolen, et al., supra, 25 S.W. l.c. 934, which I consider analogous and controlling as to the effect of the fourth “condition.” Snoddy involved conflicting claims to minerals under half of a public street. In that case plaintiff’s remote grantor by an instrument dedicating the street to public use retained the fee to the minerals in place thereunder and thereafter conveyed lots adjoining one side of the street to defendants’ remote grantors by deeds which made no mention of the mineral rights retained. The court affirmed a judgment for defendants, holding that since the deeds to the lots expressed no contrary intention by exception or reservation the minerals passed to defendants who had, by deeds describing the lots only, acquired the fee to the center of the street. See also Prewitt, et al. v. Whittaker, et al., Mo., 432 S.W.2d 240 , 243 et seq., [2-3],

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777391. Public record. Not legal advice.