Hardin v. Hardin

• Decision Date: 27 March 1890
• Citation: 32 S.C. 599,11 S.E. 102
• Parties: Hardin. v. Hardin et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

11 S.E. 102

32 S.C. 599

Hardin.

v.Hardin et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 27, 1890.

Deed—Construction.

A deed to defendant which acknowledges receipt of the consideration from both plaintiff and defendant, but makes no further mention of plaintiff's name, either in the granting clause or the " habendum, " though blank spaces have been left, apparently for the insertion of some other name with defendant's, conveys no interest to plaintiff, and will not sustain his demand against defendant for partition.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Union county; Fraser, Judge.

Nicholls & Moore, for appellant.

Carlisle & Hydrick, for respondents.

McGowan, J. This was an action for partition of a tract of land described in the complaint, claimed to be held in common by the plaintiff and the defendant William Hardin. It seems that on February 27, 1884, F. M. Trimmier executed a deed of the land, for the consideration expressed of $1,635, which was acknowledged to have been paid by William Hardin and M. L. Hardin; but the name of the latter does not appear in any of the other clauses of the deed, —either the granting clause of the premises or the "habendum, "—but blank spaces were left for the insertion of some other name as grantee with William Hardin. At the same time a note for $1,200 was given by William Hardin to Trim-mier, and to secure it a mortgage of this identical land was executed back to Trimmier. This mortgage was executed by William Hardin, but in it also were blanks left for the insertion of some other name, which was never done. In the mean time Trimmier died, and in consequence a full explanation of the circumstances could not be had. M. L. Hardin, the plaintiff, now claims that, as grantee in the Trimmier deed, he owns one-half the land, and has instituted this action for partition of the same; disclaiming that his half of the land is in any way liableforthe mortgage which was placed on it by William, who alone executed, and which, therefore, can only bind William Hardin's half of the land. William Hardin answered, merely indorsing the statements of the complaint, admitting tenancy in common. Trimmier answered, denying that the plaintiff had any interest in the land, and claiming the right to foreclose the mortgage against his co-defendant, William Hardin. It was referred to the master, H. B. Carlisle, Esq., who found, from the inspection of the papers alone, that the plaintiff, M.L. Hardin, had no interest in the land, and was not...