Ballard v. Farley

• Decision Date: 11 December 1920
• Citation: Ballard v. Farley, 226 S.W. 544, 143 Tenn. 161 (Tenn. 1920)
• Parties: BALLARD ET AL. v. FARLEY ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

226 S.W. 544

143 Tenn. 161

BALLARD ET AL. v. FARLEY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 11, 1920

Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.

Suit by Kitty Ballard and others against Cora Farley and others.There was a decree in favor of defendants, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and complainants bring certiorari.Writ denied.

Knight & Beasley, of Nashville, Chas. Gore, of Livingston, and Jos C. Higgins, of Nashville, for plaintiffs.

J. N Fisher and J. R. Curtis, both of Carthage, for defendants.

McKINNEY J.

This suit involves the construction of a deed executed September 1, 1900, the essential provisions of which are as follows:

"For and in consideration of the sum of ten hundred and fifty ($1,050) dollars--we, R. N. Horton and wife hereby convey unto William Farley and wife, the following described tract of land: [Then follows description.]

To have and to hold said land with the improvements and the appurtenances thereunto belonging to the said William Farley his heirs and assigns forever.And we covenant with the said William Farley that we are lawfully seized of said land and have a right to convey it, and that it is unincumbered.And we further covenant with and bind ourselves, our heirs and representatives, to warrant and forever defend the title to said land to the said William Farley, his heirs and assigns against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever."

The defendantCora Farley was the wife of William Farley at the time said deed was executed, and remained such until his death in 1904.

The question is: Did William Farley acquire the entire interest in the land by the deed in question, or did William Farley and his wife, Cora Farley, take the land as tenants by the entireties?

In the granting clause the conveyance is to "William Farley and wife."This is just as effectual as if it had said "to William Farley and wife, Cora Farley."

In 18 Corpus Juris, 174, it is said:

"A deed in order to pass title must designate the grantee without uncertainty, although it is not necessary that the grantee be described by name if otherwise identified, or made susceptible of identification by proof aliunde."

In Clark v. Northern Coal Co.(Ky.)112 S.W. 629, in discussing this question, the court said:

"It is not necessary that a grantee in a deed be mentioned by name.If the designation or description is sufficient to identify the person intended, the deed is effectual.Thus a deed to a man and his wife or to a man and his children is good as to the wife or children, although their names are not given."

So we have a deed by which the property was conveyed to William Farley and wife, Cora Farley, in the premises or granting clause, while in the habendum it is limited to William Farley.

In 18 Corpus Juris, 267, it is said:

"The strictness of the ancient rule as to repugnancy in deed is much relaxed, so that in this as in other cases of construction if clauses or parts are conflicting or repugnant the intention is gathered from the whole instrument instead of from particular clauses, and if it is the clear intent of the grantor that apparently inconsistent provisions shall all stand, it will be given that effect if possible.According to the trend of modern decisions, the technical rules of the common law as to the division of deeds into formal parts will not prevail as against the manifest intention of the parties as shown by the whole deed."

This rule of construction prevails in this state.On the other hand, it is equally as well settled that where there is an irreconcilable conflict or repugnancy between the premises and the habendum of the deed the former prevails.Teague v. Sowder,121 Tenn. 132, 114 S.W. 484.

It is impossible from the language of the instrument under consideration to ascertain the true intention of the grantor, and it appears to be a proper case for the application of the rule just referred to.

In Hafner v. Irwin et al.,20 N.C. 570, 34 Am. Dec. 390, the recitation of the deed was as follows:

"Know all men that I, Thomas Dwight, have granted, bargained, sold, and conveyed to the said Alfred Hafner, his heirs, executors etc., the following property: [Then follows description.]"

The deed then continues:

"To have and to...