Howard v. Henderson

Decision Date25 October 1882
Citation18 S.C. 184
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesHOWARD v. HENDERSON.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

1. Under a deed executed in 1873, whereby A. conveyed his homestead to B., in trust for A. for life, with remainder to C. (a married woman) for life, with contingent remainders over, the legal estate was vested in A. during his lifetime, by operation of the statute of uses.

2. It is only where the estate is intended for the sole use and benefit of a married woman, free from the debts and control of her husband, that the statute does not execute the use by reason of there being a trust declared for a married woman; but there can be no such intention in this deed as it was executed subsequent to the constitution of 1868, which secures a married woman's property to her own exclusive use.

3. The legal title remains in the trustee, in order to protect contingent remainders, only where the deed shows that such was the purpose of interposing a trustee.

4. Where, in the same instrument, estates are conveyed to a trustee in trust for different parties, the statute may execute the use in one case and not in the other.

Before HUDSON, J., Aiken, March, 1882.

This was an action by William S. Howard, Sr., against J. R. Henderson and J. F. Henderson, commenced in September, 1881, to recover the rents of the tract of land described in the deed, which is stated in the opinion of this court. J. R. Henderson died pending action, and his administrator answered, raising no issue of title. J. F. Henderson claimed to be the lessee of W. S. Howard, Jr., and, therefore, that he owed no rent to the plaintiff. The main issue in the case was whether the legal title was in W. S. Howard, Sr., or in W. S. Howard, Jr. Upon that point, his Honor charged the jury as follows:

The plaintiff contends that it is a deed of such purport as to confer upon the cestui que use, W. S. Howard, Sr., a legal estate for life, and not an equitable estate, i. e., that the use is executed by the statute in such case made and provided. The defendant, Henderson, on the contrary, insists that the legal estate vested thereby in the trustee, W. S. Howard, Jr., still abides in him, and for the purposes of the trusts or uses must continue to so abide in him. Therefore he insists that W. S. Howard, Jr., rightfully leased the premises to him for the year 1881, and that to him as his landlord he is alone responsible for rents.

I concur in the construction of the deed contended for by the defendant, J. F. Henderson. The consideration of the deed is chiefly the love and affection of the grantor for the wife and children of his son, W. S. Howard, Jr., and their welfare is the leading object of the deed. The courts have generally held that the statute does not execute a use for the benefit of a married woman, nor in a case where the preservation of contingent remainders is necessary, nor where future duties are devolved upon the trustees. Nearly all these features appear upon the face of this deed, and to execute the use so as to confer a legal estate on W. S. Howard, Sr., for life would evidently be dangerous to, if not destructive of, the estates in remainder, the leading one of which is for a married woman for life.

I hold, therefore, that the legal estate in this land is, under this deed, in the trustee, and in the beneficiaries only an equitable estate, until in the contingent remaindermen the entire estate in fee with the rights of possession shall fully vest.

It is the duty, however, of the trustee to suffer the life-tenant to occupy, use and enjoy the premises during his life, so long as the same can be done consistently with the welfare of the life-tenant, and the preservation of the property for the remaindermen, and this use and enjoyment would be secured to the life-tenant by a court of equity, if necessary. Furthermore, should the life-tenant remove from the premises or abandon the same, and the trustee, from these or any other good causes, sees fit to lease the premises, he would be bound to account to the life-tenant for full, fair and reasonable rents and profits; and to enforce such accounting, the court of equity is always open to the cestui que use. In the event, however, that the trustee should, for good cause appearing to him, lease the premises to any one whilst the same are not occupied by the cestui que use, then the cestui que use can bring no action at law against such a tenant of the trustee for rent nor for use and occupation, because there is no contract betwixt them, either express or implied. The trustee alone has the right of action upon the lease, and the remedy of the cestui que trust is against the trustee, and in an equitable action. To such an action, he might, if needs be, make the tenant a party.

The exceptions, so far as they relate to matters considered by this court, raise, in several forms, the one question: Whether the legal title under this deed was in W. S. Howard, Sr., or in W. S. Howard, Jr.

Messrs. Croft & Dunlap, P. A. Emanuel, for appellant.

Messrs. Henderson Bros., contra, cited 1 Ves. 485; 2 S. C. 133; 4 McC. 456; 1 Hill 414;10 S. C. 386;16 Id. 545;3 Id. 100; 1 Spears 366, 591; 7 Rich. 81.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SIMPSON.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, appellant, to recover the rent for the year 1881 of a certain tract of land in Aiken county, of which the appellant claimed to be the legal owner. The defendants, respondents, denied the title of the appellant, and alleged that W. S. Howard, Jr., as trustee of appellant, was the legal owner of the land, and that the rent was due to him instead of to the appellant. Although several other questions were raised in the progress of the case, yet the question of title was the main question, and the solution of this question depended upon the constructionof a deed, introduced in evidence by the defendants, of which the following is a copy:

“This indenture, made the 28th day of October, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and seventy-three, between William S. Howard, Sr., of the county of Aiken, and State of South Carolina, of the first part, and William S. Howard, Jr., of the county and State aforesaid, as trustee, as hereinafter set forth, of the second part, witnesseth, that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the love and affection he has for Mrs. Georgia V. Howard, wife of the said Wm. S. Howard, Jr., and her children, as well as in consideration of the sum of ten dollars to him in hand well and truly paid by the said party of the second part, at and before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, released, conveyed and confirmed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, release, convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part, his successors and assigns, all that lot of land lying in said Aiken county, bounded *** containing two hundred and fifty acres, more or less, and being the homestead or residence of W. S. Howard, Sr., in trust, nevertheless, for the use, benefit and behoof of the said William S. Howard, Sr., during the term of his natural life, with remainder at his death to the said Georgia V. Howard, during the term of her natural life, and upon her death to such child or children of the said William S. Howard, Jr., and the said Georgia V. Howard, as may be living. Together with all and singular, the rights, easements, ways, members and appurtenances to the said lot of land being, belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the remainders, reversions, rents, issues and profits thereof, and every part thereof. To have and to hold the said lot of land, and all and singular the premises and appurtenances thereunto belonging as aforesaid, and every part thereof unto the party of the second part, his successor in trust, and assigns forever, for the uses and upon the trusts hereinbefore mentioned,” concluding with the usual warranty.

The defendants relied upon this deed as conveying the legal title to the land in question to the trustee, W. S. Howard, Jr., and, inasmuch as the defendant, J. F. Henderson, had rented the said land for the year 1881 from W. S. Howard, Jr., as trustee, by written lease, which was introduced in evidence, they claimed that the action of the plaintiff could not be sustained. On the other hand, the plaintiff also relied upon this deed, contending that the use provided for in the deed had been executed by the statute, and a legal estate for life had thereby been conferred upon W. S. Howard, Sr., the plaintiff, and that he was, therefore, entitled to his action. The presiding judge concurred in the construction contended for by the defendants, and charged the jury to that effect. Under this charge the jury found for the defendants.

The leading question in the case, as has already been stated, arises upon the construction of the deed of appellant, W. S. Howard, Sr., to his son, W. S. Howard, Jr., above referred to. We think, upon the authority of the cases hereinafter cited, that the judge was in error in his construction of this deed. In our opinion, the statute 27 Henry VIII., executed the use and transmitted a legal estate for life to the appellant, W. S. Howard, Sr., in the land in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Spann v. Carson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 17, 1923
    ...destroy them, and there would therefore be no peril against which the trustee would be expected to protect them. In Howard v. Henderson, 18 S. C. 184, it is held that the legal title remains in the trustee, in order to protect contingent remainders, only where the deed shows that such was t......
  • Kirton v. Howard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 26, 1926
    ...Mrs. Goodwin, and the eldest son of Liles, parties to the suit. This court held, under[134 S.E. 868]the authority of Howard v. Henderson, 18 S. C. 184, that the statute of uses executed the use as to the life estate and vested the legal title in Mrs. Goodwin for life, discharged from the tr......
  • Kirton v. Howard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 26, 1926
    ...Moore, the grantee of Mrs. Goodwin, and the eldest son of Liles, parties to the suit. This court held, under the authority of Howard v. Henderson, 18 S.C. 184, that the statute of uses executed the use as to the estate and vested the legal title in Mrs. Goodwin for life, discharged from the......
  • Spann v. Carson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 17, 1923
    ...one else, to destroy them, and there would therefore be no peril against which the trustee would be expected to protect them. In Howard v. Henderson, 18 S.C. 184, it is held the legal title remains in the trustee, in order to protect contingent remainders, only where the deed shows that suc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT