Gargis v. Kennemer
Decision Date | 30 June 1927 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 956 |
Citation | 113 So. 620,216 Ala. 494 |
Parties | GARGIS v. KENNEMER et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.
Bill in equity by John Gargis against J.W. Kennemer and others, and cross-bill by respondents. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the cross-bill, complainant appeals. Reversed rendered, and remanded.
W.H Shaw, of Tuscumbia, for appellant.
Nathan Nathan & Nathan, of Sheffield, for appellees.
While the deed in question acknowledges payment of the purchase money by John Gargis and his wife, Emma Gargis, the grant is to John Gargis alone. The habendum says, "To have and to hold the same unto the said John Gargis and Emma Gargis," thus creating a conflict between the grant and habendum. It is not a question of an open undefined estate which is subject to be explained, limited, or qualified, as held in the case of Graves v. Wheeler, 180 Ala. 412, 61 So. 341. 4
Thompson on Real Property, § 3326.
1 Devlin on Real Estate (Deeds) § 219.
"If one grantee is named in the premises, and in the habendum the same person with another is named, the grantee named in the premises will take the estate conveyed, and the person not so named will take nothing." 4 Thompson on Real Property, § 3328.
The words of the granting clause will prevail where there is a conflict between the prefatory words, the granting clause, and the habendum clause of the deed. Van Hoose v. Dickson, 157 Ala. 459, 47 So. 718; Graves v. Wheeler, 180 Ala. 412, 61 So. 341; Head v. Hunnicutt, 172 Ala. 48, 55 So. 161; Webb v. Webb, 29 Ala. 588. We therefore hold that John Gargis took the entire estate under the deed and his wife, Emma, took nothing.
The trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the cross-bill, and the decree of the circuit court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hardee v. Hardee
...180 Ala. 412, 61 So. 341; Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 82 So. 668; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 Ala. 674, 95 So. 180; Gargis v. Kennemer, 216 Ala. 494, 133 So. 620; King v. King, 242 Ala. 53, 4 So.2d 740; Rowell v. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co., 248 Ala. 463, 28 So.2d 209; Stratford v. Lattimer, ......
-
Henry v. White
...Graves v. Wheeler, supra; Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 82 So. 668; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 Ala. 674, 95 So. 180; Gargis v. Kennemer, 216 Ala. 494, 113 So. 620; King v. King, 242 Ala. 53, 4 So.2d 740; Rowell v. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co., 248 Ala. 463, 28 So.2d 209; Stratford v. Lattimer, ......
-
Kramer v. Moore, 37968
...but payment of the purchase price, if he in fact paid it or any part of it, falls far short of proving he was a grantee. Gargis v. Kennemer, 216 Ala. 494, 113 So. 620. The effect of his having signed the note with Perseller is greatly weakened by the facts heretofore set out. Besides, there......