Cereghino v. Einberg
Decision Date | 19 June 1886 |
Citation | 4 Utah 514,11 P. 568 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | GIOVANNI CEREGHINO, RESPONDENT, v. HENRY WAGENER, INTERVENOR AND APPELLANT, IMPLEADED WITH FREDERICK EINBERG |
APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the third district. "Exhibit E" referred to in the opinion was the findings of fact of the trial court in the second suit for a divorce instituted by respondent against her husband as follows:
A decree of divorce was rendered on these findings, but on motion made by C. a new trial was granted in said action on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings and decree; the order granting such new trial was offered in evidence by appellant in connection with "Exhibit E," and the entire record of said second suit for a divorce; all of said record was excluded by the court to which appellant excepted, and this ruling furnishes one of the assignments of error. The other facts sufficient appear in the opinion of the court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Mr. Arthur Brown and Mr. E. B. Critchlow, for the appellant.
Is the instrument marked Exhibit "A," a deed of conveyance?
We contend that it must be held to be an agreement for a deed and not a deed.
1. In construing written instruments, effect is to be given to the instrument or writing as a whole, though single clauses taken alone would give a different construction: Chase v. Bradley, 26 Me. 531; Heywood v. Perrin, 10 Pick., 230; 2 Cruise Dig., R. P. 300; 2 Smith L. C., 516-7; Settle v. Winters, 10 P. 220.
2. The contract or writing will be so construed as to give force and validity to all the parts and to all the language used, where that is possible.
The only instances in which the court will suppress or ignore any parts of the writing, are those in which it becomes necessary, in order to sustain and enforce the contract according to the evident intention of the parties: 2 Parson's Cont., 505-6; McKinney v. Settles, 31 Mo. 541.
The intention of the parties, as gathered from an inspection of the whole instrument, will be carried out, provided the instrument contains the necessary words, and no violence is done to its language: 31 Mo. 351; Kenworth v. Tullis, 3 Ind., 99; Emigrant Co. v. Clark, 62 Ia. 182; Settle v. Winters, 10 P. 220.
Tested by the above rules, what is the character of this instrument? We contend that it advertises itself, both by matters recited and by its omissions, as being an agreement for a deed, and not as a conveyance.
a. It is called in the premises an agreement.
b. It recites that a deed in due form is not made, and gives the reason therefor.
c. It contains a promise to make a good and sufficient deed in the future.
d. It speaks of the deed to be made as said deed; whereas, had the intention been to convey the property by this writing in question, the expression would have been undoubtedly this deed.
e. It speaks of the estate contemplated in this writing, not as the estate hereby granted, but as the estate thereby granted, an expression inconsistent with the idea that this is a conveyance of the estate.
2. The second question raised is as to the validity of the instrument, assuming it to be a conveyance, in view of the fact that it purports to be a conveyance from the husband to the wife directly, without the aid of trustees.
It is admitted this could not be done at common law, but it is further contended that our statute has so far removed the disability of women as to permit them to take directly from the husband.
The statute (Comp. Laws, p. 342) is general in its terms, and being in derogation of the common law is not to be construed as removing any of the peculiar disabilities arising out of the marriage relation, unless specially enumerated or necessarily implied: 10 Nevada, 43; White v. Wager, 25 N.Y. 328. Approved, 32 N.Y. 423; Brown v. Fifield, 4 Mich., 322; Ransom v. Ransom, 30 Mich. 328; In connection with Const. Mich., 1 Howells, Stat., p. 67; Sims v. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181; Hileman v. Hileman, 85 Ind. 1.
Mr. C. S. Varian, for the respondent.
The instrument executed by Antonio Cereghino is a deed. It contains a description of the property, the names of the parties, and operative words of present grant, together with a statement of sufficient consideration. Nothing more is necessary. See: Washburn on Real Property, Vol. 3, p. 612, (top page 318), 621, (top pages 329, 330); Kent, Vol. 4. p. 461, 492; Coke on Littleton, 7, note "a;" Greenleaf's Cruise, 51; Kenworthy v. Trellis, 3 Ind., 98; Pierson v. Armstrong, 1 Iowa, 282; Chiles v. Conley, 2 Dana (Ky.) 23, 24; McKinney v. Settles, 31 Mo. 544; Lambert v. Smith, 9 Oregon, 193; Patterson v. Cornelius' Heirs, 3 A. K. Marshall, 621; American Emigrant Co. v. Clarke, 62 Iowa 187.
The description is made certain by reference to another deed: Washburn, 3 Vol. p. 367; Foss v. Crisp, 20 Pick., 124.
Under our law the wife can take directly from the husband: Comp. Laws, p. 342, sec. 1020; p. 262, sec. 647; p. 271, sec. 689; p. 253, sec. 616.
These statutes clearly indicate the legislative intent to do away with the useless and unnecessary distinctions of the past. In equity, conveyanccs between the spouses were upheld: Cummings v. Friedman, Wis., Albany Law Journal, March 20, '86, p. 229; Putnam v. Bicknell, 18 Wis. 351; Bishop's Married Women, vol. I, sec. 717.
Similar laws are so construed: Barker v. Koneman, 13 Cal. 10; Kohner v. Ashenaum 17 Cal. 578-581; Dow v. Gould, 31 Cal. 629; 31 Cal. 653; Herssey v. Castle, 41 Cal. 239; Woods v. Whitney, 42 Cal. 361; Higgins v. Higgins, 46 Cal. 263; Amperse v. Burdeno, 5 Am. L. Reg. 275 Mich.
The respondent instituted suit against one Einberg for the possession of a certain tract of land described in the complaint. Einberg answered that personally he had no connection with the title to the property, and that he held possession of it as the tenant of Henry Wagener, and not otherwise. Wagener intervened, claiming the property under some deed, but from whom it does not appear. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, the same being waived, and judgment was entered for respondent, and thereupon the cause was appealed by said Wagener, the intervenor, to this court. The respondent claims title under an instrument in writing executed by her husband, Antonio Cereghino, which is in words and figures following, to-wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Julian v. Petersen
...Ann. § 25-5-1 (1995); signed by the creator, see id.; 26 C.J.S. Deeds § 34 (1956); supported by consideration, see Cereghino v. Einberg, 4 Utah 514, 11 P. 568 (Utah 1886); and delivered to the grantee. See Wiggill v. Cheney, 597 P.2d 1351, 1351 (Utah 1979) (providing delivery met if deed pa......