Hall v. Barnett

Decision Date20 November 1893
Citation14 So. 732,71 Miss. 37
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesJAMES F. HALL v. W. B. J. BARNETT ET AL

FROM the chancery court of Madison county, HON. H. C. CONN Chancellor.

John Hall, of Madison county, Mississippi, owned two plantations in said county--the Hollingsworth place and the Mhoon place. He became an invalid, and was unable to look after his business affairs. He had two invalid unmarried daughters, who were dependent upon him for support. In January, 1892, being convinced that he would not recover his health, he made an agreement with his son, James F. Hall, to come and live with him, and take care of him and his two daughters until his death. In consideration of this, he was to give to his said son the Hollingsworth place, upon which James had resided for a number of years. At the same time, he agreed with Mrs Montgomery, a married daughter, that he would give her the Mhoon place, upon condition that she should support the two invalid daughters after his death. Mrs. Montgomery agreed to this, provided her husband would assent to it, and it was agreed between said John Hall and his son James that if Mr Montgomery would not assent to the arrangement, then James was to have the Mhoon place, on condition that he would support his two sisters after the father's death. The matter having thus far been agreed upon, a justice of the peace was sent for to write the deeds. A deed was prepared and signed by said John Hall conveying to James the said Hollingsworth place. This deed recited a consideration of one dollar and natural love. After being acknowledged, it was handed to James by the father, with instructions to place it in a trunk, which belonged to the said John Hall, and was kept in the room where he was sick. A deed was then prepared conveying the Mhoon place to Mrs. Montgomery, expressing the same consideration. This deed was also signed and acknowledged by the father, and handed to the son, with instructions to place it in the trunk, which was done. The next day, the justice of the peace being still present, a deed was prepared, conveying the Mhoon place to James. It was understood that this deed was to be used in case Mr Montgomery would not assent to the arrangement by which his wife was to support her two sisters after the death of the father. It was signed and acknowledged, and likewise handed to James by his father, with instructions to lock it up in the trunk with the other deeds, which was done. A will was then prepared, which was signed by John Hall, and duly witnessed, and this was also handed to James Hall, and was placed in the trunk, and it was locked, James retaining the key. In the will no mention was made of the property embraced in the deeds, but it disposed of all other property of the testator not already disposed of. James F. Hall and Mrs. Montgomery were not mentioned in the will. James did not live with his father at the time, and, while he retained the key, the trunk belonged to his father, and in it the latter kept his valuable papers, and, sometimes, money. It was kept in the room, and was under his immediate control.

A few weeks after the deeds were thus drawn, it appears that John Hall became displeased with his son. At any rate, he directed an attendant to open the trunk, and the two deeds in favor of James were handed to him, and he destroyed them. A few months after this he died, and after his death James F. Hall filed the bill in this case against the appellees to establish his title to the Hollingsworth place under the deed signed and acknowledged as above.

From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Downs & Ward, for appellant.

It is evident from the testimony that John Hall, at the time of executing the deed, intended that the title to the Hollingsworth place should vest eo instanti in his son, who had lived on the place for twenty years. If, when there was a manual transition of the deed from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Wilbourn v. Wilbourn
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1948
    ...it in his and his wife's possession and under their control and never delivered it, as was the case in Lynch v. Lynch, supra, and Hall v. Barnett, supra. (2) That Mrs. Wilbourn delivered the deed to anyone or authorized anyone to record it, and there is not a scintilla of evidence in the re......
  • McClellan v. McCauley
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1930
    ... ... papers is always a circumstance strongly evidential of a want ... of delivery ... Hall v ... Barnett, 71 Miss. 37, 14 So. 732; Lynch v. Lynch, 83 ... The ... evidence does not show any fraud such as is contended for by ... ...
  • Ladner v. Moran
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1941
    ... ... contrary intention, betokens not a delivery but a deposit ... Wilson v. Bridgeforth, 108 Miss. 199, 66 So. 524, ... 528; Hall v. Waddill, 78 Miss. 16, 26, 27 So. 936, ... 28 So. 831. Grantor's deposit of the instrument with the ... bank may have imposed on the bank duties ... Trott, 162 Cal ... 268, 122 P. 462; 18 C.J., p. 205, sec. 101; Harkreader v ... Clayton, 56 Miss. 383, 390, 31 Am.Rep. 369; Hall v ... Barnett, 71 Miss. 37, 14 So. 732 ... The ... chancellor was justified in finding that the grantor intended ... and effected delivery of the deed ... ...
  • McMillan v. Gibson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1954
    ...standing alone, would constitute delivery we need not here decide. Delivery is largely a matter of intention of the grantor. Hall v. Barnett, 71 Miss. 37, 14 So. 732; Frederic v. Merchants & Marine Bank, 200 Miss. 755, 28 So.2d 843. Intention of the grantor is manifested by his words, acts ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT