Brown v. Brown,

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtDEEMER
Citation125 Iowa 218,101 N.W. 81
Decision Date19 October 1904
PartiesBROWN ET AL. v. BROWN ET AL.

125 Iowa 218
101 N.W. 81

BROWN ET AL.
v.
BROWN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 19, 1904.


Appeal from District Court, Wayne County; H. M. Towner, Judge.

Suit in equity to quiet plaintiffs' title to certain real estate in Wayne county. Defendants' demurrer to the petition was sustained, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

[101 N.W. 81]

Will B. Barger and Miles & Steele, for appellants.

Livingston & Son and Freeland & Evans, for appellees.


DEEMER, C. J.

Plaintiffs and the defendants are the children and heirs at law of one Angelina Brown, who died testate in November of the year 1902. By the terms of her will she devised her real estate to the plaintiffs, and gave to the defendants each a small legacy, as and for their full share of her estate. Plaintiffs contend that at the time of testatrix's decease she was the owner in fee of the real estate in question, in virtue of a deed therefor from her mother, Sarah Ann Campbell, of date September 23, 1886, the material parts of which read as follows: “I, Sarah Ann Campbell, widow, of Morton, Tazewell county, state of Illinois, for love and affection do hereby convey to as a free gift, said gift being in value $5,000.00, to Angelina Brown, my daughter, during her natural life, and at her death to her children, or to their lineal descendants, [the land in controversy.] This conveyance is made upon the condition, that the said Angelina Brown shall not lease except annually, or otherwise encumber said land and premises, or any part thereof during her natural lifetime; that the said Angelina Brown personally or by agent, shall annually pay the taxes on said land as they accrue and send the receipts thereto [the said receipts being in the name of the said Angelina Brown] to the grantor or to her appointee, said receipts to be forwarded to the grantor Sarah Ann Campbell or her appointed agent, at least four weeks prior to the tax sale in the said county of Wayne, for the year such receipts cover, during the life of said Angelina Brown. Upon a breach of all or any one of either of the foregoing conditions, this conveyance shall be absolutely void, and the grantor or her heirs, executors or administrators, shall have the right to take possession of said land without being liable for any improvement that may be put thereon in the meantime, but if the said grantee Angelina Brown shall fully keep and perform each and all of the above-expressed conditions during her lifetime, then at her death the title to said land shall hereby vest absolutely in the lineal descendants of said Angelina Brown.”

Plaintiffs contend that under the rule in Shelley's Case this deed vested a fee-simple title in their mother, and that they took the same title under her will; while defendants argue that the rule in Shelley's Case is not in force in this state, and that, if it is in force, the facts do not bring it within that rule; and that they, as children of Angelina Brown, are entitled to a share of the estate under and by virtue of the terms of Sarah Ann Campbell's deed.

The issues of law thus defined are sharp and clear, and the case must be solved by interpreting the deed to Angelina Brown, which we have just set forth. The conveyance on its face is of a life estate to Mrs. Brown, and at her death to her children, or to their lineal descendants; and in the clause referring to conditions subsequent it is provided that, if kept and performed by the said Angelina Brown during her lifetime,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Harlan v. Manington,
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 17, 1911
    ...Sup. Ct. 461, 41 L. Ed. 827, applying the law in Maryland as announced in Shreve v. Shreve, 43 Md. 382. In Brown v. Brown, 125 Iowa, 218, 101 N. W. 81, 67 L. R. A. 629, we approved arguendo the Maryland rule, and stated that the rule does not apply in such cases, citing in support of the pr......
  • Blair v. Kenaston, No. 43758.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 11, 1937
    ...it is manifest that the grantor intends to use the word “children” as the equivalent of the word “heirs.” Brown v. Brown, 125 Iowa, 218, 101 N.W. 81, 67 L.R.A. 629;Ault v. Hillyard, 138 Iowa, 239, 115 N.W. 1030;Westcott v. Meeker, 144 Iowa, 311, 122 N.W. 964, 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 947;Harris v. B......
  • Kepler v. Larson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 21, 1906
    ...account, and granting clause and habendum read together in arriving at the proper interpretation of an instrument. Brown v. Brown (Iowa) 101 N. W. 81, 67 L. R. A. 629. Going back now to the original deed under which plaintiff claims, we find that the conveyance was to him during his natural......
  • Doyle v. Andis,
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 20, 1905
    ...it within the rule in Shelley's Case is undoubtedly correct, but might well have been put on another ground. See Brown v. Brown (Iowa) 101 N. W. 81;Myers v. Anderson, 47 Am. Dec. 537;McIntyre v. McIntyre, 16 S. C. 290. The case is authority, then, on two propositions only: (1) That the rule......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Harlan v. Manington,
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 17, 1911
    ...Sup. Ct. 461, 41 L. Ed. 827, applying the law in Maryland as announced in Shreve v. Shreve, 43 Md. 382. In Brown v. Brown, 125 Iowa, 218, 101 N. W. 81, 67 L. R. A. 629, we approved arguendo the Maryland rule, and stated that the rule does not apply in such cases, citing in support of the pr......
  • Blair v. Kenaston, No. 43758.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 11, 1937
    ...it is manifest that the grantor intends to use the word “children” as the equivalent of the word “heirs.” Brown v. Brown, 125 Iowa, 218, 101 N.W. 81, 67 L.R.A. 629;Ault v. Hillyard, 138 Iowa, 239, 115 N.W. 1030;Westcott v. Meeker, 144 Iowa, 311, 122 N.W. 964, 29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 947;Harris v. B......
  • Kepler v. Larson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 21, 1906
    ...account, and granting clause and habendum read together in arriving at the proper interpretation of an instrument. Brown v. Brown (Iowa) 101 N. W. 81, 67 L. R. A. 629. Going back now to the original deed under which plaintiff claims, we find that the conveyance was to him during his natural......
  • Doyle v. Andis,
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 20, 1905
    ...it within the rule in Shelley's Case is undoubtedly correct, but might well have been put on another ground. See Brown v. Brown (Iowa) 101 N. W. 81;Myers v. Anderson, 47 Am. Dec. 537;McIntyre v. McIntyre, 16 S. C. 290. The case is authority, then, on two propositions only: (1) That the rule......
  • 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