Gamble v. Gamble

• Decision Date: 17 May 1917
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 692
• Citation: 75 So. 924,200 Ala. 176
• Parties: GAMBLE et al. v. GAMBLE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

75 So. 924

200 Ala. 176

GAMBLE et al. v. GAMBLE.

4 Div. 692

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 17, 1917

Appeal from Chancery Court, Houston County; O.S. Lewis, Chancellor.

Bill by Willie J. Gamble against Ligon Solomon Gamble and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H.K Martin, of Dothan, for appellants.

T.M Espy, of Dothan, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The bill filed by appellee against appellants invokes a construction of a deed. The grantor was W.I. Gamble. He owned the land in question. The consideration was therein recited to be $1, latterly love and affection; the appellee, W.J Gamble, being the son of the grantor. At the time of the execution and delivery of the deed the appellee had two living children, viz. the appellants Ligon Solomon Gamble and Maude M. Gamble; and after its execution and delivery the appellants Hoyett E. and Sudie M. Gamble were born to appellee. Eliminating presently unimportant features of the instrument, it reads:

"Know all men by these presents that W.I. Gamble *** do hereby acknowledge, do hereby grant, bargain, sell, enfeoff, and confirm and convey unto the said Willie J. Gamble the following described real estate: ***

"First. I, W.I. Gamble, do hereby grant and give to my son Willie J. Gamble the above-described real estate to forever be his and his bodily heirs after him, and to be free from mortgage or any form of conveyance by deed to the second generation; this being my natural love and affection.

"Second. Said Willie J. Gamble shall keep all taxes and all expenses of farm and all appurtenances there to in good repairs during his natural life and all rents shall be his alone.

"To have and to hold the aforegranted premises to the said Willie J. Gamble, heirs and assigns forever.

"And I do covenant with the said Willie J. Gamble, heirs and assigns, that I, lawfully seised in fee of the aforegranted premises; that they are free from all incumbrances; that I have a good right to sell and convey the same to the said Willie J. Gamble, heirs and assigns forever, against the lawful claims and demands of all persons."

Since it appears from the face of the instrument that it was drawn by an unskilled draftsman, greater latitude of construction is to be indulged than if it had been the product of a skilled scrivener. May v. Richie, 65 Ala. 602; Wallace v. Hodges, 160 Ala. 276, 49 So. 312. If the words "to be free from mortgage or any form of conveyance by deed to the second generation" and the words "said Willie J. Gamble shall keep all taxes and all expenses of farm [["paid" we interpolate] and all appurtenances thereto in good repairs during his natural life and all rents shall be his alone" had been omitted from the instrument, it would have presented a plain case within the doctrine of Wallace v. Hodges, supra, and Slayton v. Blount, 93 Ala. 575, 9 So. 241, and others in that line, where it was held that the effort was to create an estate tail converted by our statute (Code, § 3397) into a fee simple. Do the first-quoted words, when considered in connection with all of the terms of the instrument, manifest an intent entertained by the grantor either to constitute the children of Willie J. Gamble tenants in common with him in the land or to create a life estate in Willie J. Gamble with remainders in his children? For the reasons stated in Wallace v. Hodges, it is entirely clear from the face of the instrument that the creation of a relation of cotenancy was no part of the grantor's purpose. Neither of the then living children of Willie J. Gamble is...