Coffelt v. Decatur School District No. 17
| Decision Date | 26 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 4-8385 |
| Citation | 208 S.W.2d 1,212 Ark. 743 |
| Parties | Coffelt v. Decatur School District No. 17 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; John K. Butt, Chancellor.
Reversed.
Jeff Rice and Eugene Coffelt, for appellant.
Smith & Smith, for appellee.
OPINION
For his cause of action appellant alleged that James M. Burgin conveyed a one-acre lot to School District No. 45 of Benton county to be used for school purposes, that a school house was built on the lot which was used for school purposes for a number of years, but was later abandoned and ceased to be used for school purposes, and the district was about to remove the school building a distance of about seven miles. Burgin the grantor in the deed died and his heirs conveyed the lot to appellant who brought this suit to enjoin the district from removing the building, it being alleged that the title thereto had reverted to the Burgin heirs upon the abandonment of the property for school purposes. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained and the complaint was dismissed from which order is this appeal.
The question presented for decision is the proper construction of the deed to the school district, that is, whether the deed conveyed the fee title, or was only a conditional grant of the land for a specific purpose. We copy the relevant portions of the deed.
The recent case of Carter Oil Co. v. Weil, 209 Ark. 653, 192 S.W.2d 215 received the fullest consideration at our hands and definitely announced that in the construction of deeds and other writings we would be concerned primarily in ascertaining the intention of the parties to the writing; that we would examine such writings from their four corners, all for the purpose of ascertaining what the parties intended by the language which they had employed, and that if such intention clearly appeared effect would be given thereto.
In the case of Luther v. Patman, 200 Ark. 853, 141 S.W.2d 42, Justice Humphreys said that rules of construction were not intended to control the interpretation of a writing, but to aid in the interpretation, and would be resorted to only when the correct interpretation was in doubt and that the intention of the parties, if it can be gathered from the instrument in its entirety, must control.
We adhere to this ruling and as the meaning of the language employed in the deed appears clear we have no occasion to discuss the subject of conditions subsequent, nor when they arise, or the effect thereof, or to invoke rules of construction.
There is no conflict here between the language of the granting clause and the habendum clause of the deed, but if there were we would still have the authority, and be under the duty to read the instrument in its entirety to ascertain the intention of the parties to the deed. This is definitely decided in the Carter Oil Co. case, supra.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickens-Bond Const. Co. v. North Little Rock Elec. Co.
...most strictly against Pickens-Bond, who apparently prepared it. Miller v. Dyer, 243 Ark. 981, 423 S.W.2d 275; Coffelt v. Decatur School District, 212 Ark. 743, 208 S.W.2d 1; Stoops v. Bank of Brinkley, 146 Ark. 127, 225 S.W. Our construction of the contract, however, does not completely for......
-
Charlotte Park and Recreation Commission v. Barringer
...act of the grantor. For other cases of a determinable fee created under substantially similar language see: Coffelt v. Decatur School District No. 17, 212 Ark. 743, 208 S.W.2d 1; Regular Predestinarian Baptist Church of Pleasant Grove v. Parker, 373 Ill. 607, 27 N.E.2d 522, 137 A.L.R. 635; ......
-
Roberts v. Unimin Corp.
...17, 19 (1982) ; Coffelt v. Decatur Sch. Dist. , 214 Ark. 587, 217 S.W.2d 347, 348 (1949) ( Coffelt II ); Coffelt v. Decatur Sch. Dist. , 212 Ark. 743, 208 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1948). It is characteristic of all determinable estates that "the reverter may not take place for an indefinite period in t......
-
United States v. Wooten
...construed by the Court according to its obvious meaning. Nakdimen v. Brazil, 131 Ark. 144, 150, 198 S.W. 524; Coffelt v. Decatur School District No. 17, 212 Ark. 743, 208 S.W.2d 1. The contract is to be considered as a whole. United States for Use and Benefit of Lichter v. Henke Const. Co.,......