## Facts

- An irrigation corporation formed in 1895 to construct and maintain diversion works and a ditch to carry Rapid Creek water for irrigation and related uses acquired numerous “strip” conveyances along the ditch line.
- In 1898, a landowner executed a quitclaim instrument conveying a strip “not exceeding forty (40) feet in width” following the ditch survey and a recorded plat; the instrument used broad quitclaim language but also described the grant as a “right of way” and tied additional consideration to providing water when the ditch operated.
- The strip description referenced the ditch location rather than metes-and-bounds, and the width was expressed as a maximum rather than a fixed boundary.
- A 1972 flood destroyed portions of the ditch; in 1973 the shareholders voted to dissolve the corporation and contemplated transferring certain adjacent lands while recognizing ditch burdens as easements.
- After dissolution, the corporation conveyed property to a purchaser who conveyed to Northwest Realty.
- The Jacobs, owners of lots crossed by the former ditch, placed fill over part of the old ditch corridor to create a parking area for their automobile dealership.
- Northwest Realty sued for an injunction requiring removal of the fill, claiming fee simple title to the strip through the corporation’s chain of title; the Jacobs counterclaimed to quiet title and to enjoin interference.
- On stipulated facts, the trial court ruled the 1898 instrument conveyed fee title and entered judgment for Northwest Realty.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1898 quitclaim instrument conveyed fee simple title to the strip or only a right-of-way easement for ditch purposes.
2. Whether a successor claiming through the ditch company could obtain injunctive relief against adjacent owners based on asserted fee ownership of the strip.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the trial court.
- The court held the 1898 instrument conveyed only a right-of-way easement, not fee title.
- Because the ditch company lacked fee title, Northwest Realty’s chain of title could not support a fee-based injunction against the Jacobs.
- The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment for the Jacobs.

## Legal Principles

- When an instrument conveys a narrow “strip” associated with a linear facility and the deed is ambiguous, it is construed as granting an easement unless the instrument, read as a whole, clearly shows intent to convey the fee.
- Internal deed conflicts matter: fee-like granting clauses may be outweighed by repeated “right of way” terminology and purpose-linked consideration indicating a corridor for a specific use.
- A description keyed to a facility’s course (e.g., “not exceeding” a stated width following a survey line) supports an easement inference because it signals functional flexibility rather than a fixed, separately held parcel.
- Practical treatment of the property (including taxation and corporate conduct) may corroborate whether the parties treated the interest as an easement rather than separate fee ownership.
- Courts disfavor interpreting ambiguous instruments to create separate fee ownership of narrow strips detached from the adjoining land due to resulting title and land-use complications.

## Conclusion

The court construed the 1898 ditch-strip conveyance as a right-of-way easement, not a fee transfer, and therefore rejected the successor’s claim to fee ownership and injunctive relief, directing judgment for the adjacent landowners.


Nw. Realty Co. v. Jacobs, 273 N.W.2d 141 (S.D. 1978)