Crooker v. Hollingsworth, 37488

• Decision Date: 22 May 1950
• Docket Number: No. 37488,37488
• Parties: CROOKER v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 541

46 So.2d 541

210 Miss. 636

CROOKER v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al.

No. 37488.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, in Banc.

May 22, 1950.

Russell Wright, Meridian, for appellant.

S. M. Graham, Meridian, Gilbert & Cameron, Meridian, for appellees.

HALL, Justice.

This appeal presents two questions for decision. The first which we consider is whether or not any interest in the land in question was conveyed to Dr. Ruth K. Haley by a deed from E. R. Crooker, Sr., and wife, Mrs. Emma MaeCrooker, dated May 30, 1939, wherein said grantors, for a valuable consideration, purported to convey to said grantee 'an undivided one-third interest in and to all my right, title and interest in and to' the lands in controversy. The question arises out of this factual situation: On May 1, 1939, E. R. Crooker, Jr., owned an undivided two-thirds interest in said land, having acquired the same by virtue of an attempted lien given by his father in 1928 in violation of the provisions of a deed from Mrs. Melissa A. Crooker, dated November 2, 1905, hereinafter mentioned, and E. R. Crooker, Sr., owned no interest whatever therein on May 1, 1939. E. R. Crooker, Jr., executed to his father a deed conveying to him said undivided two-thirds interest. This deed is dated May 1, 1939, but the acknowledgment of the grantor therein is dated June 8, 1939. Appellant contends that the deed to Dr. Haley conveyed nothing because on May 30, 1939, E. R. Crooker, Sr., owned no interest in the land, and did not acquire any interest until nine days thereafter,--the date of the acknowledgment in the deed from E. R. Crooker, Jr., to E. R. Crooker, Sr. Appellees contend that the last-mentioned deed was effective as of May 1, 1939, the date thereof, and this contention was adopted by the Chancellor.

In 26 C.J.S., Deeds, Sec. 94, p. 346-347, it is said:

'While a deed generally takes effect only from the date of its delivery, under some circumstances passage of title may be considered to relate back to a prior date provided no prejudice results to intervening equities.

'As appears supra Sec. 53, it is generally the rule that a deed takes effect from the date of its delivery, not from the time of its execution or record. Under certain circumstances, however, the courts apply the doctrine of relation by which passage of title is considered by a fiction of law to relate back to a prior date, provided no prejudice results to intervening equities. Accordingly, a deed may speak from its date, where such is the intention of the parties, as where they deliberately antedate the deed; but the antedating cannot affect intervening rights.'

The acknowledgment in the deed from the son to the father in this case recites that he 'acknowledged that he signed and delivered the foregoing instrument on the day and year therein mentioned as his voluntary act and deed.' While the acknowledgment is dated June 8, 1939, the day and year mentioned in the deed is May 1, 1939, and we are of the opinion that the chancellor was correct in holding that the deed related back to and took effect as of May 1, 1939, so that E. R. Crooker, Sr., became vested with an undivided two-thirds interest as of that date, and that, consequently, his deed to Dr. Haley on May 30, 1939, conveyed an undivided two-ninths interest in the land, being one-third of an individed two-thirds interest. In this connection it should be noted that there are no intervening rights or equities so far as appellant is concerned. She joined in the deed to Dr. Haley, and now claims to be the owner of the interest therein conveyed pursuant to the last will and testament of E. R. Crooker, Sr., who devised his entire estate to appellant. Unquestionably Dr. Haley thought she was buying something on May 30, 1939, and appellant and her husband either thought that they were selling something to her or else they deliberately perpetrated a fraud upon her. While we do not in any manner impute fraud to the appellant and her husband, we do adopt the view that they intended to sell something to Dr. Haley. This view comports with equity and good conscience and is in line with the decree of the lower court. It would be grossly inequitable and little short of a legal fraud to uphold the contention of appellant who was one of the grantors in the deed to Dr. Haley.

The other question for decision involves the application of the doctrine of afteracquired title. Mrs. Melissa A. Crooker had three children, viz., E. R. Crooker, Sr., Arthur B. Crooker and Mrs. Hattie M. Hollingsworth. On November 2, 1905, she executed three deeds which are rather lengthy and complicated. It is unnecessary to detail the numerous provisions of these deeds and we mention only those which are here brought into play. She conveyed to E. R. Crooker, Sr., a life estate in an undivided four-sixths interest in the land in question with remainder to his children, and further provided that if he should sell or attempt to sell or incumber the same to any person except his brother or sister, his life estate should immediately cease and the fee-simple title should immediately vest in his child or children. She executed similar deeds to Mrs. Hollingsworth and Arthur B. Crooker for a life estate in an undivided one-sixth interest. These deeds were all delivered to E. R. Crooker, Sr., at or about the time of their execution, and he retained possession of all of them, without recordation, until 1920 when they were recorded after the events next mentioned herein.

On November 26, 1918, Mrs. Melissa A. Crooker, for a valuable consideration, executed to Mrs. Hollingsworth and her husband a deed purporting to convey to them the full fee-simple title to said lands, which deed was recorded on December 5, 1918. Thereafter, on June 6, 1919, E....