Buffington v. Carson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an easement was conveyed to a railroad, when the grantor retained a reversionary interest over the right-of-way if the railroad was never formed.
• holding where a grantor retained uses of the land for agricultural purposes conveyed an easement
• determining that because the deed defined how the railroad would use the land and its rights therein, it was “inconsistent with the conveyance of title, where the owner has full dominion and control, [unlike] in an easement”
• noting that “the deed form language of ‘successor and assigns,’ ‘forever in fee simple,’ and ‘will warrant and defend the title thereof, against the claim of all persons’ has the attributes of a deed of title in fee simple by warranty deed”
• the words “forever, in fee simple,” along with other standard phrases, such as “successors and assigns,” “will warrant and defend the title thereof against the claim of all persons,” typically indicate a fee simple title
• “[T]he conveyance of Mims did not intend to convey anything more to the railroad than an easement for the right-of-way, because the initial convey- ance specified only a quantity of land affected, 100 feet on either side of the tracks, and the direction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).