Conveyance – Accretion

Accretions must be expressly excepted or reserved in a conveyance to avoid a transfer. State v. Eckland, 147 Neb. 508, 23 N.W.2d 782 (1946); Mulhall v. State, 140 Neb. 341, 299 N.W. 481 (1941).

Grantors conveyed to A with rights to accretion. A conveyed to B without mentioning accretion. B’s trustees conveyed to the defendant again without mentioning any accretion from the past or in the future. A then conveyed the accreted land to C. The court held that the fact that the deed from A to B did not describe the accretion was unimportant because the deed conveyed any accretion to the land which was specified in the deed. Accretion must be expressly excluded from a conveyance to avoid a transfer of it. The deed from A to C was null because A retained no interest. Wemmer v. Young, 167 Neb. 495, 93 N.W.2d 837 (1959).

The U.S. government granted a section of land to the state of Nebraska. Nebraska conveyed the land to the defendant not described by metes and bounds expressed in deeds which purported to convey title to her. The defendant claims title to the disputed tract by accretion granted in his deed. The trial court found for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that deeds described by government field notes include title to any accretion which attaches to the property and reversed the trial courts decision and found for the defendant. Topping v. Cohn, 71 Neb. 559, 99 N.W. 372 (1904).

Where at the time of a grant from the U.S., the bank of a river was a part of the boundary, subsequent accretions, formed by the gradual recession of the bank, become a part of the grant. Topping v. Cohn, 71 Neb. 559, 99 N.W. 372 (1904).

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: