Walters v. Tucker
Missouri Supreme Court
281 S.W.2d 843 (1955)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Fred Wolf owned a parcel of residential real property. Wolf conveyed a portion of the parcel by deed describing the conveyed portion as the west 50 feet of Lot 13. At the time of conveyance, a house existed on the portion conveyed. After conveyance, Wolf built a house on the retained portion. Walters (plaintiff) was the successor in title to the portion described as the west 50 feet. Tucker (defendant) was the successor in title to the portion retained by Wolf. Walters asserted that the boundaries of the conveyed portion should be established by measuring a line 50 feet at right angles to the west line of the original lot. Tucker asserted that the intent of the conveyance was to provide 50 feet of frontage along a road running at a diagonal to the lot lines. Tucker’s method of establishing the boundaries of the conveyed parcel would result in the width of Walters’ lot measuring approximately 42 feet from the west line of the original lot. Tucker’s method of measurement would also result in an encroachment upon a driveway appurtenant to Walters’ property. Walter filed a quiet title action. The trial court heard extrinsic evidence and concluded that the grantor’s intent was to convey 50 feet of frontage along the roadway. The trial court ruled in favor of Tucker. Walters appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hollingsworth, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
