Bunckley v. Jones

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtWALKER, Special J.
Citation29 So. 1000,79 Miss. 1
PartiesALBERT N. BUNCKLEY v. PAUL L. JONES ET AL. [*]
Decision Date08 April 1901

29 So. 1000

79 Miss. 1

ALBERT N. BUNCKLEY
v.

PAUL L. JONES ET AL.
[*]

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 8, 1901


FROM the chancery court of Franklin county. HON. CLAUDE PINTARD, Chancellor.

Bunckley, appellant, was complainant in the court below; Jones and others, appellees, were defendants there.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Decree affirmed.

Theodore McKnight, for appellant.

Calvin Perkins and Green & Green, for appellees.

Argued orally by Theodore McKnight, for appellant, and by M. Green, for appellee.

OPINION

[79 Miss. 2] WALKER, Special J.

The record in this case shows that on May 10, 1847, Ransom Bunckley, owning a large body of land in Franklin county, some thirty-odd slaves, horses, cattle, etc., by deed conveyed a portion of the same to his three sons, Nathan, Ransom P., and Douglass. After the granting clause in the deed, he made this provision: "To have and to hold the said tract or parcel of land, the said negroes and stock, together with all the rights, [79 Miss. 3] liberties, privileges, hereditaments, and appurtenances hereby granted [29 So. 1001] or intended to be granted unto the said Nathan Bunckley, Ransom P. Bunckley, and Douglass Bunckley, parties of the second part, to them, their heirs and assigns, and unto their own proper use and behoof, forever, with this express exception and reservation, however: That is to say, that the said Ransom, party of the first part, as aforesaid, is to retain the possession of the entire property hereinbefore by these presents granted, and to receive and enjoy all the profits, use, and benefits of the same, for and during the term of his natural life, as free and unincumbered as to possession and enjoyment of said property as though these presents had not been executed; and immediately after the death of the said Ransom, party of the first part, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the said property by these presents conveyed is to be divided into equal shares between the parties of the second part: provided, also, if the said Nathan, Ransom P., and Douglass, or either of them, shall die, whether before or after the death of the said Ransom, of the first part, or before or after a division of said property, without leaving a child or children surviving them, and in that event, the survivor or survivors and their children shall take the whole of the property by these presents granted and conveyed. " On the same day, and as a part of the consideration for the deed above mentioned, he, with his wife, executed a deed to Nathan, his son, as trustee, conveying certain other lands and slaves in trust, with the following stipulations: "To have and to hold the said tracts or parcels of land and negroes, with the appurtenances hereinbefore granted, in trust, nevertheless, for the use and purpose herein specified; that is to say, in trust to suffer and permit the said parties of the first part to occupy, use, and enjoy the benefits, rents, and profits of the said lands by these presents granted, and the said slaves, in as full and ample a manner as though these presents were unexecuted, for and during the natural life of the said Ransom Bunckley, and then, immediately after the death of [79 Miss. 4] the said Ransom, should his said wife, Mary Ann, be the survivor, to grant and convey the before-mentioned tracts or parcels of land and slaves, and every part of said property in these presents mentioned, unto the said Mary Ann, for and during the term of her natural life, and no longer; it being the express intention of the said Ransom to secure to the said Mary Ann the before-mentioned land and negroes after his death, and of the said Mary Ann to accept the same as a full equivalent and in the full consideration of the right, title, and interest which the said Mary Ann would otherwise have unto the estate of the said Ransom at the time of his death, and then in the remainder in fee simple to Nathan Bunckley, Ransom P. Bunckley, and Douglass Bunckley, and their heirs, in equal shares, but should said Nathan, Ransom, or Douglass die, either before or after the death of the said Mary Ann, without child or children surviving them, in that event to the survivor or survivors of my three sons, Nathan, Ransom, and Douglass, and the descendants of such survivor or survivors, in equal shares, forever." In 1848 or 1849 the wife, Mary Ann, died, and in 1870 Ransom Bunckley died. In 1861 the three sons, Nathan, Ransom P., and Douglass, by writing, parted among themselves the lands embraced in the foregoing deed and deed in trust. In April, 1861, Douglass and wife conveyed to Nathan the portion that had fallen in the partition to Douglass, and in May of the same year Douglass died childless. After 1861, and prior to 1873--the exact date not shown by the record--Ransom P. Bunckley died, leaving as his heirs his three children, named in the record John R. Bunckley, Mrs. Alice I. Williams, and Mrs. Lelia Scriber. In 1888 Nathan Bunckley, to secure a loan of $ 5,000 from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Killings v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co, 33885
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1940
    ...argument if allowed would submerge the rule, take it out of the books, in its entirety as laid down in such cases as Bunckley v. Jones, 79 Miss. 1, 29 So. 1000; Anderson v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 86 Miss. 341, 38 So. 786, and Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Quick, 167 Miss. 438, 149 So. 107, a rule......
  • Dixie Greyshound Lines, Inc. v. Matthews, 32273
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 23, 1936
    ...Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 285; Anderson v. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co., 86; Miss. 341, 38 So. 786; Bunckley v. Jones, [177 Miss. 105] 79 Miss. 1, 29 So. 1000; Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 U.S. 379, 40 L.Ed. 463; Choctaw v. Newton, 71 C. C. A. 655, 140 F. 225; Graves v. U.S. 150 U.S. 118, 37 L.Ed.......
  • Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Tripp, 33293
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 10, 1938
    ...269; Anderson v. Telephone Co., 86 Miss. 353, 38 So. 786; Southern, etc., Tel. Co. v. Quick, 167 Miss. 438, 149 So. 110; Buckley v. Jones, 79 Miss. 1, 29 So. 1000; Calhoun v. Burneff, 40 Miss. 599; Robinson v. Haydel, 177 Miss. 233, 171 So. 7; Norwood v. Andrews, 71 Miss. 641, 16 So. 262; L......
  • Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee, 26535
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 27, 1928
    ...of their relations. 4 Wigmore on Evidence, 2273; 22 C. J. 115; Anderson v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 86 Miss. 341; Bunckley v. Jones, 79 Miss. 1; Calhoun v. Burnett, 40 Miss. 599. 10 R. C. L. 887 lays down the rule that the failure to produce a witness available to both parties should......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Killings v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co, 33885
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1940
    ...argument if allowed would submerge the rule, take it out of the books, in its entirety as laid down in such cases as Bunckley v. Jones, 79 Miss. 1, 29 So. 1000; Anderson v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 86 Miss. 341, 38 So. 786, and Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Quick, 167 Miss. 438, 149 So. 107, a rule......
  • Dixie Greyshound Lines, Inc. v. Matthews, 32273
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 23, 1936
    ...Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 285; Anderson v. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co., 86; Miss. 341, 38 So. 786; Bunckley v. Jones, [177 Miss. 105] 79 Miss. 1, 29 So. 1000; Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 U.S. 379, 40 L.Ed. 463; Choctaw v. Newton, 71 C. C. A. 655, 140 F. 225; Graves v. U.S. 150 U.S. 118, 37 L.Ed.......
  • Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Tripp, 33293
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 10, 1938
    ...269; Anderson v. Telephone Co., 86 Miss. 353, 38 So. 786; Southern, etc., Tel. Co. v. Quick, 167 Miss. 438, 149 So. 110; Buckley v. Jones, 79 Miss. 1, 29 So. 1000; Calhoun v. Burneff, 40 Miss. 599; Robinson v. Haydel, 177 Miss. 233, 171 So. 7; Norwood v. Andrews, 71 Miss. 641, 16 So. 262; L......
  • Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee, 26535
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 27, 1928
    ...of their relations. 4 Wigmore on Evidence, 2273; 22 C. J. 115; Anderson v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 86 Miss. 341; Bunckley v. Jones, 79 Miss. 1; Calhoun v. Burnett, 40 Miss. 599. 10 R. C. L. 887 lays down the rule that the failure to produce a witness available to both parties should......
  • 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