Goins v. Melton

• Citation: 121 S.W.2d 821
• Decision Date: 19 November 1938
• Docket Number: No. 35449.,35449.
• Parties: FERN GOINS v. HENRY MELTON ET AL., Defendants, ALICE G. MELTON, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

121 S.W.2d 821

FERN GOINS v. HENRY MELTON ET AL., Defendants, ALICE G. MELTON, Appellant.

No. 35449.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Division One, November 19, 1938^*

Appeal from Mercer Circuit Court. — Hon. A.G. Knight, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

J. Raymond Eggleston, Thomas J. Layson and Geo. H. Hubbell for appellant.

(1) By the terms of the granting and habendum clauses of the warranty deeds executed by the said Robert N. Melton, said deeds constituted a present conveyance to the appellant, Alice G. Melton, of the real estate which Robert N. Melton then had and owned at the time of the execution of said deeds, subject to the reserved life estate; and, the fact that the grantor retained in said reservation the right in himself to sell and deed all or any part of the property during his lifetime did not render the deeds testamentary in character. Sims v. Brown, 252 Mo. 68, 73 A.L.R. 222 n., 158 S.W. 624; R.S. 1929, secs. 3014, 3039, 3040, 3112; Tennant v. Tennant Memorial Home, 140 Pac. 247, 167 Cal. 570; 18 C.J., secs. 338, 344, pp. 339, 344; Garland v. Smith, 164 Mo. 14, 64 S.W. 188; Davis v. Rossi, 34 S.W. (2d) 20, 326 Mo. 939; O'Day v. Meadows, 194 Mo. 623, 92 S.W. 637; Hamilton v. Cargile, 127 Ga. 762, 56 S.E. 1022; Ricker v. Brown, 183 Mass. 424, 67 N.E. 355; Ricketts v. Louisville, St. L. & Tex. Ry. Co., 91 Ky. 221, 15 S.W. 182, 34 Am. St. Rep. 176, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 422; Aldridge v. Aldridge, 202 Mo. 575, 101 S.W. 42; 21 C.J., secs. 6, 210, pp. 917, 1025; Dawson v. Taylor, 214 S.W. 853; Thorp v. Daniel, 99 S.W. (2d) 42. The Missouri statute provides:" ... And hereafter an estate of freehold or of inheritance may be made to commence in the future by deed, in like manner as by will." R.S. 1929, sec. 3112. "Conveyances of lands, or of any estate or interest therein may be made by deed executed by any person having authority to convey the same, or by his agent or attorney, and acknowledged and recorded as herein directed, without any other act or ceremony whatever." R.S. 1929, sec. 3014. (2) The language employed by the grantor in the reservation in the deeds after reserving a life estate and the right to sell during his lifetime, to-wit, "that at his death the title to all, or whatever part thereof remains unsold to pass to and vest in the grantee, together with all his personal property and belongings," was used by the grantor to fix the time of the right of possession in the grantee; the word "title" as employed in said reservation means the right of possession. The language thus employed did not render the deeds testamentary in character. Wimpey v. Ledford, 177 S.W. 304, 11 A.L.R. 7; Priest v. McFarland, 262 Mo. 239, 171 S.W. 62; Dawson v. Taylor, 214 S.W. 853; Christ v. Kuehne, 172 Mo. 126, 72 S.W. 537; Nolan v. Otney, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 320, 75 Kan. 311, 89 Pac. 690; Monroe v. Lyons, 98 S.W. (2d) 546; Lanphere v. Affeld, 99 S.W. (2d) 36; Thorp v. Daniel, 99 S.W. (2d) 42; Wimpey v. Lawrence, 208 S.W. 56; Owen v. Trail, 302 Mo. 305, 258 S.W. 699; Sims v. Brown, 252 Mo. 67, 158 S.W. 624; Sec. 3112, R.S. 1929. (3) The consideration expressed in the warranty deeds was the sum of care and attention and one dollar — the sum of care and attention during life and one dollar. This was a valid consideration — there was no allegation of fraud, mental incapacity or undue influence and no proof offered on the part of the plaintiff on said issues — there was no allegation or proof of failure of consideration, or inadequate consideration, and there are no such issues in the case. Reaves v. Pierce, 26 S.W. (2d) 617; Wigginton v. Burns, 216 S.W. 759; Mallory v. James, 98 S.W. (2d) 922; Wimpey v. Ledford, 177 S.W. 303; Weissenfels v. Cable, 208 Mo. 534, 106 S.W. 1028. (4) The grantor in the two warranty deeds involved in this case nowhere states that the warranty deeds shall not take effect until the death of the grantor, or, that the grantee shall have no interest until after the death of the grantor, and this court has distinguished the cases in this respect wherein by reason of such provisions the deed has been held testamentary in character. Lanphere v. Affeld, 99 S.W. (2d) 39; Hohenstreet v. Segelhorst, 285 Mo. 521, 227 S.W. 80; Wimpey v. Ledford, 177 S.W. 304; Dawson v. Taylor, 214 S.W. 853; Priest v. McFarland, 262 Mo. 239; Christ v. Kuehne, 172 Mo. 126; Owen v. Trail, 302 Mo. 305, 258 S.W. 699; Aldridge v. Aldridge, 202 Mo. 574; O'Day v. Meadows, 194 Mo. 621; Rot v. Michalis, 17 N.E. 809, 125 Ill. 352; Thorp v. Daniel, 99 S.W. (2d) 42; Sec. 3112, R.S. 1929.

Hubert Fuller and C.C. Ross for respondent.

(1) An instrument purporting to be a deed, which on its face declares the title to land was to be held by maker until his death and then title to be vested, is testamentary in character and not good as a deed and not having been properly witnessed cannot operate as a will. Griffin v. McIntosh, 176 Mo. 392; Terry v. Glover, 235 Mo. 544; Given v. Ott, 222 Mo. 935; Aldridge v. Aldridge, 202 Mo. 565; Goodale v. Evans, 263 Mo. 218; Hohenstreet v. Segelhorst, 285 Mo. 507; Kahn v. Hogan, 270 S.W. 640; and Sims v. Brown, 252 Mo. 66. (2) If the fee is not to pass at the making of the deed and until after the death of the maker, the instrument is testamentary in character. Murphy v. Gabbert, 166 Mo. 601; Thorp v. Daniel, 99 S.W. (2d) 42. (3) Reference to another deed for description makes the other deed a part of it as though copied in it. Clamorgan v. Railroad Co., 72 Mo. 139; Agan v. Shannon, 103 Mo. 661, and Matthews v. O'Donnell, 289 Mo. 235, 233 S.W. 451.

BRADLEY, C.

This cause was commenced to partition 225 acres of land in Mercer County, but because of the answer of Alice G. Melton, who claimed to be the sole owner, a question of title became involved. The trial court found against the sole ownership claim, ordered partition, and defendant, Alice G. Melton, appealed.

[1] Robert N. Melton, who died August 12, 1935, was the common source of title. He never married, had no children, and died intestate. Plaintiff and defendants are collateral kin, and Alice G. Melton is a niece of Robert N. She claimed sole ownership under two warranty deeds executed by Robert N. Melton. The first of these was executed September 19, 1933, and the second was executed October 17, 1933. The second deed was executed to correct error in description, so as to exclude certain lands, and include others, and, except for description, the deeds are the same in form. The form is that of a general warranty deed, except a clause presently to be stated. The consideration is "care and attention during life (of grantor) and one dollar to him paid" by the grantee, Alice G. Melton. Immediately following the description is this clause.

"It is the express understanding between the parties hereto that the grantor herein shall retain possession and control of all profits therefrom for and during his natural life time, also retaining to himself the right to sell and deed said land, or any part thereof during his life time, at his death the title to all, or whatever part thereof remains unsold, to pass to and vest in the grantee together with all his personal property and belongings. (Italics ours.)

It is contended on the one hand that the deeds are testamentary in character, and, therefore, void, and the trial court so found. On the other hand appellant contends that by the deeds she, at the time of their execution and delivery, became vested with the fee, but that the possession and enjoyment were postponed during the life of the grantor. Section 3112, Revised Statutes 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., sec. 3112, p. 1939), enacted in 1845 (R.S. 1845, sec. 9, p. 220), among other things, provides: "And hereafter an estate of freehold or of inheritance may be made to commence in future by deed, in like manner as by will." But under this statute "it is essential to the validity of a deed purporting to convey such an estate that the right to the future estate conveyed vest in the grantee immediately though possession be deferred." [Aldridge v. Aldridge, 202 Mo. 565, l.c. 572, 101 S.W. 42.] "One of the important distinctions between a deed and an instrument testamentary in character is that in a deed a present estate or interest is passed, while in an instrument testamentary in character no part of the title treated is to pass until the death of the grantor. Whenever the instrument discloses the grantor's intention to be that no estate or interest is to pass until the death of the grantor, then it is considered to be testamentary in character, and comes within the rule governing the passing of title by will; and if not executed in form and manner required of a will it is of no force or effect for any purpose." [Sims v. Brown, 252 Mo. 58, l.c. 66, 158 S.W. 624; Thorp v. Damel, 339 Mo. 763, 99 S.W. (2d) 42, l.c. 44.]

"The intention of the grantor, as gathered from the four corners of the instrument, is now the pole star of construction. That intention may be expressed anywhere in the instrument, and in any words, the simpler and plainer the better, that will impart it, and the court will enforce it no matter in what part of the instrument it is found." [Utter v. Sidman, 170 Mo. 284, l.c. 294, 70 S.W. 702.]

[2] Another requirement of a deed made to convey an estate of freehold or of inheritance to commence in the future, as provided for under Section 3112, Revised Statutes 1929, the deed must vest in the grantee a present interest and an irrevocable interest. [Owen v. Trail, 302 Mo. 292, 258 S.W. 699, l.c. 702; Hohenstreet v. Segelhorst, 258 Mo. 507, 227 S.W. 80.] In the Owen case, the court said: "If the terms of the deed show that the intention of the grantor is to pass a present irrevocable interest in the property, and that a limiting condition operated only upon the present enjoyment of the premises, then it would be a valid deed."

Manifestly, the power to sell, reserved by the grantor in the present deeds, was equivalent to a power to revoke. [Sims v. Brown, 252 Mo. 58, ...