reversion clause in Kansas

2017It noted one deed did "not contain a reversion clause." 29 Kan.

2004Despite the small size of the land conveyed in the deeds, the lack of any express or implied use restriction required the panel to conclude that both deeds conveyed fee title. 29 Kan.

2000In Nott , the warranty deed did not mention a limited use and did not contain a reversion clause. 155 Kan. at 95 .

1982Thompson v. Godfrey, 191 Kan. 102 , 379 P.2d 269 (1963); Rose v. School District No. 94, 162 Kan. 720 , 179 P.2d 181 (1947).

1982Thompson v. Godfrey, 191 Kan. 102 , 379 P.2d 269 (1963); Rose v. School District No. 94, 162 Kan. 720 , 179 P.2d 181 (1947).

1982Thompson v. Godfrey, 191 Kan. 102 , 379 P.2d 269 (1963); Rose v. School District No. 94, 162 Kan. 720 , 179 P.2d 181 (1947).

1982Thompson v. Godfrey, 191 Kan. 102 , 379 P.2d 269 (1963); Rose v. School District No. 94, 162 Kan. 720 , 179 P.2d 181 (1947).

1963Although factually dissimilar, we think the general principles announced in Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Smith, 149 Kan. 789 , 89 P. 2d 838 , are controlling on the underlying basic question in this case relating to the right of plaintiffs, as successors in interest, to ownership of the portion of the school tract in question upon its *108 abandonment for school purposes — by virtue of the reversion clause in the 1885 Cherry deed.

1963Although factually dissimilar, we think the general principles announced in Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Smith, 149 Kan. 789 , 89 P. 2d 838 , are controlling on the underlying basic question in this case relating to the right of plaintiffs, as successors in interest, to ownership of the portion of the school tract in question upon its *108 abandonment for school purposes — by virtue of the reversion clause in the 1885 Cherry deed.

1963(And see also Harvest Queen Mill & Elevator Co. v. Sanders, 189 Kan. 536 , 370 P. 2d 419 .) In both' its general and special verdicts the jury found that plaintiffs were the owners of the tract in controversy, and those findings —despite defendant’s contention to the contrary — are supported by the evidence.

1963(And see also Harvest Queen Mill & Elevator Co. v. Sanders, 189 Kan. 536 , 370 P. 2d 419 .) In both' its general and special verdicts the jury found that plaintiffs were the owners of the tract in controversy, and those findings —despite defendant’s contention to the contrary — are supported by the evidence.

1935It was there held, by virtue of a warranty deed without a reversion clause, and the description of the land being as a strip lying within fifty feet of the center line of the main track of the railroad, which road was never built nor graded, that' — • “An instrument which is in form a general warranty deed, conveying a strip of land to a railroad company for a right of way, will not vest an absolute title in the railroad company, but the interest conveyed is limited by the use for which the land is acquired, and when that use is abandoned the property will revert to the adjoining owner.” (Syl.

1935It was there held, by virtue of a warranty deed without a reversion clause, and the description of the land being as a strip lying within fifty feet of the center line of the main track of the railroad, which road was never built nor graded, that' — • “An instrument which is in form a general warranty deed, conveying a strip of land to a railroad company for a right of way, will not vest an absolute title in the railroad company, but the interest conveyed is limited by the use for which the land is acquired, and when that use is abandoned the property will revert to the adjoining owner.” (Syl.