First National Bank of Ft. Smith v. Graham
Decision Date | 07 February 1938 |
Docket Number | 4-4937 |
Citation | 113 S.W.2d 497,195 Ark. 586 |
Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FT. SMITH v. GRAHAM |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; J. Sam Wood, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Daily & Woods, for appellant.
Hardin & Barton, for appellee.
This suit in ejectment was brought by the appellee to recover a tract of land which is a part of the north half of the southwest quarter and northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 24, township 8 north, range 30 west. It is unnecessary here to describe more definitely. Appellee's complaint alleges that both the plaintiff and defendant claim title from T. H. Powers as the common source. Powers and his wife had executed a deed to their daughter Tadie Graham. It was set forth in full in the complaint. Those essential parts in controversy are copied.
Plaintiff further alleged that Tadie Graham had executed a mortgage upon this property to secure an indebtedness, and the effect of that pleading was that the mortgage had been regularly foreclosed and the property had been purchased at a foreclosure sale by the First National Bank of Fort Smith and that it was in possession. The plaintiff asserted no irregularity or illegality in the matter of foreclosure. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled. Defendant declined to plead further and judgment was rendered accordingly.
The only question presented in the trial court, and here upon appeal, is the effect of the deed executed by Powers and his wife to his daughter, Tadie Graham. A construction of that deed settles the whole controversy.
The appellant insists that the rule in Shelley's case is applicable. The appellee is equally insistent that under the rules of construction, as they relate to conveyancing, full effect must be given to the intention of the grantor as expressed in the whole instrument and that method of construction results, as it did in the lower court, in a declaration or construction favoring the appellee and a consequent affirmance upon this appeal. Following appellee's contention, as far as we are able, we do not arrive at the same conclusion in all respects counsel of appellee insist upon.
It is true that the deed is written "convey to said Tadie Graham for and during her natural life." Of course, if that were all, there would be no question and appellant would not even insist that the grantee took more than her life estate in the property, but the grantor added in the same sentence and after the word "life" the words, "and at her death to descend and go to her children and heirs-at-law in fee simple, and unto her heirs and assigns forever." Now if we attempt to follow the theory of the appellee what must necessarily be the conclusion? Do the children and heirs- at-law of Tadie Graham take any interest of the property by reason of this conveyance? That does not seem to be the intention of the grantor. He says "to descend and go to her children," so it must appear that this idea was that her children would take under the law of descent, that is, whatever interest they might have in the land, ultimately, would be by inheritance.
It, therefore, seems to us that under the very theory insisted upon, the children of Tadie Graham obtained or held no interest by reason of the deed and the grantor must have intended an estate of inheritance because he attempted to provide for one, and that intention may help to determine the legal effect of the deed. What we are trying to say is that his intention as to the conveyance added nothing to the force or effect of the law, but that intention as expressed may make applicable well known principles.
It is argued that the words "to descend and go to her children and heirs-at-law in fee simple" were words written into a blank of a printed form and that the succeeding words "heirs and assigns forever" were parts of the printed form and, therefore, we should give, in the construction of this instrument, full force and effect to that part written in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seaman Store Co. v. Bonner
... ... BAKER, ... J. GRIFFIN SMITH, C. J., SMITH and MCHANEY, JJ., dissent ... first floor to the second floor of the store building of the ... ...
-
Smedley v. City of Waldron
...for further proceedings. Some Arkansas courts have disapproved restraints on alienation. See, e.g., First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Graham, 195 Ark. 586, 593, 113 S.W.2d 497 (1938); Letzkus v. Nothwang, 170 Ark. 403, 408, 279 S.W. 1006 (1926). The district court erred in failing to dis......
-
First Nat. Bank of Fort Smith v. Graham, 4-4937.
... ... February 7, 1938 ... Rehearing Denied March 7, 1938 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County, Greenwood District; J. Sam. Wood, Judge ... Suit in ejectment by Bernice Graham, a minor, by Ernest Graham, her father and next friend, against the First National Bank of Fort Smith to recover a tract of land. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals ... Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions ... Daily & Woods, of Fort Smith, for appellant ... Hardin & Barton, of Fort Smith, for appellee ... ...
-
Rogers v. Kaylor, 5-1188
...appellants cannot prevail. Affirmed. 1 In addition to Hardage v. Stroope, supra, the following are a few: First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Graham, 195 Ark. 586, 113 S.W.2d 497; Shields v. Shields, 179 Ark. 167, 14 S.W.2d 545; and Ryan v. Ryan, 138 Ark. 362, 211 S.W. 183.2 In 47 Am.Jur. ......