Wilson v. Watkins

Decision Date26 February 1897
Citation26 S.E. 663,48 S.C. 341
PartiesWILSON et al. v. WATKINS.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Anderson county; Townsend Judge.

Action by Amanda C. Wilson and others against William Watkins to recover possession of lands. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Modified.

The decree of the lower court (omitting caption), and the exceptions to it, follow:

Decree.
"In this action the plaintiffs seek to recover possession of a tract of land, and to partition it among them. The facts reported by the special referee show that J C. Eaton made a deed to said land to R. G. Eaton on the 16th July, 1874, which was duly recorded; that on the ___ day of January, 1879, R. G. Eaton made a deed to said land to the defendant, Wm. Watkins; that J. C. Eaton died in 1877, and R G. Eaton in 1894; that R. G. Eaton never had any children and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of J. C. Eaton. It is also in proof that $500 would be a full price for the fee-simple title to said land at the time it was conveyed to R. G. Eaton, and that $90 was a fair rental value thereof for one year. The plaintiffs contend that the deed from J. C Eaton to R. G. Eaton conveyed only a life estate in said land, and that they were entitled to possession thereof immediately on the death of R. G. Eaton, in December, 1894; basing their claim both upon the habendum clause of said deed, and also upon a certain condition expressed in said deed. The defendant, Wm. Watkins, contends that J. C. Eaton conveyed a fee-simple title to R. G. Eaton, and that R. G. Eaton conveyed the same to him, and that plaintiffs have no cause of action.
"The habendum clause in the deed from J. C. Eaton to R. G. Eaton is as follows: 'To have and to hold him and his forever,' and the condition above mentioned is as follows: 'If the said R. G. Eaton shall die without children, then the said premises revert back to said J. C. Eaton or his legal heirs.' The defendant contends that the habendum clause, as it is written in the deed, has no meaning, and that, as J. C. Eaton intended to convey a fee-simple title, apt words to convey such title should be inserted in said clause, so that it will read as following: 'To have and to hold him and his heirs forever.' In the entire absence of any testimony showing such intention on the part of J. C. Eaton as that the parties to said deed, or either of them, intended to insert in said clause the words now sought to be inserted therein, I must leave it as it is written in the deed.
"The defendant contends further, however, that the deed, taken as a whole and especially the warranty clause), shows that the grantor, J. C. Eaton, intended to convey a fee-simple title. But the inferences to be drawn from the warranty clause and the other parts of the deed referred to are not sufficient to support the reformation sought for. Jordan v. Neece, 36 S.C. 295, 15 S.E. 202. I therefore conclude that R. G. Eaton took only a life estate in said land from J. C. Eaton, and that at the death of R. G. Eaton the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of said land, and that the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for the rent thereof since the death of R. G. Eaton. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiffs recover possession of said land from the defendant, and $135 for the use thereof by defendant since December, 1894; and judgment is rendered for said amount, $135, against the defendant, William Watkins. It is further ordered that said land be sold for partition among the plaintiffs, and that the proceeds be held till the further order of this court. It is further ordered that plaintiffs have leave to apply at chambers for further orders in this cause."

Exceptions.

"The defendant excepts to the decree upon the following grounds: (1) Because his honor erred in holding that R. G. Eaton took only a life estate in the land from J. C. Eaton, and that at the death of R. G. Eaton the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of said land, and that the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for the rent thereof since the death of R. G. Eaton. (2) Because he erred in decreeing that plaintiffs recover possession of said land from the defendant, and also one hundred and thirty-five dollars for the use thereof, and in rendering judgment for that amount. (3) Because he erred in not holding that the habendum clause of the deed from J. C. Eaton to R. G. Eaton, which is as follows, 'to have and to hold him and his forever,' bears upon its face a clerical omission of some words or words, and, it being a clerical error, the court had authority and should reform the deed by supplying the omitted words. (4) Because his honor erred in not holding that the words 'to' and 'heirs' were the words omitted from said habendum clause, and in not reforming said clause to make it read 'to have and to hold to him and his heirs forever.' (5) Because he erred in holding that there was entire absence of any testimony showing that J. C. Eaton, or the parties to said deed, or either of them, intended to insert in said clause the words now sought to be inserted therein. (6) Because he erred in deciding to leave the deed from J. C. Eaton to R. G. Eaton as he found it written, and in refusing to reform the deed according to its plain intent and meaning. (7) Because he erred in holding that the warranty clause and the other parts of the deed referred to are not sufficient to support the reformation sought for. (8) Because his honor erred in not holding that J. C. Eaton intended R. G. Eaton to have the fee in said land, and that the fee should remain in him and descend to his children, if he should have children, and only in the event of his failure to have children that the land was to revert back to J. C. Eaton or his legal heirs, and that the deed, when construed as a whole, and giving effect to every part of it, plainly and unmistakably showed that such was the intention, and that this intention could not be carried into effect unless the words 'to' and 'heirs' were inserted in the said habendum clause, and being necessary words to carry into effect the intention of J. C. Eaton, and being omitted evidently by oversight or mistake, they should now be inserted in the deed. (9) Because his honor erred in not holding that there was evidence to show that it was the intention of both J. C. Eaton and R. G. Eaton should take the fee in said land. (10) Because he erred in not holding that the habendum clause in said deed bore upon its face that some word or words were accidentally omitted, and that the testimony and the other parts of the deed, especially the warranty clause, and the two conditions attached to the deed, plainly showed that the words omitted were 'to' and 'heirs,' and that these words were omitted by oversight or mistake, and that it was the intention of both grantor and grantee that they should be written in the deed, and that effect could only be given to all parts of said deed by inserting the said words therein. (11) Because he erred in refusing to reform said clause, making it read, 'to have and to hold to him and his heirs forever,' and in not holding that said deed, when so reformed, becomes a fee-simple deed, and that the condition, 'that in the event of R. G. Eaton dying without children the land should revert back to J. C. Eaton or his legal heirs,' attached to the end of the deed, was a condition repugnant to the deed itself, and surplusage, and was therefore void and inoperative, leaving the deed to operate as a deed in fee simple. (12) Because he erred in not holding that R. G. Eaton took from J. C. Eaton a deed in fee simple to said land, and that R. G. Eaton having the fee-simple title to said land, and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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