Hewit v. N.Y., N. H. & H.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1898
• Citation: 70 Conn. 637,40 A. 605
• Parties: HEWIT et al. v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H.R. CO.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

40 A. 605

70 Conn. 637

HEWIT et al.

v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H.R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 24, 1898.

Case reserved from superior court, Pairfield county; John M. Thayer, Judge.

Action by Henrietta M. Hewit and others against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company for a judicial construction of a deed. Case reserved for the advice of the supreme court on an agreed statement of facts. Deed advised to be void ab initio.

The deed was executed and delivered in 1880, by Samuel H. Hurd, and purported, "for the consideration of one dollar received to my full satisfaction of Catherine S. Hewit," to release all his title to certain land in Bridgeport, "unto the children of the said Catherine S. Hewit who shall be alive at her decease, and the issue of any child or children, if there be any, their heirs and assigns, in equal shares, per stirpes"; habendum, "unto the said releasees, their heirs and assigns, forever." It was added that "the intent of this instrument is to release to my sister's children this property, which their grandfather Samuel F. Hurd intended to convey to them by his will, dated February 1, 1854, now on file on record in the probate court of the district of Bridgeport." At the date of the deed, the releasor owned the land in fee, subject to the life use of his sister Catherine S. Hewit; and she was 61 years old, and had living six children and five grandchildren, by one of her sons. The deed was recorded in 1886. Mrs. Hewit, in 1897, released her interest to Hurd; and he thereupon executed and delivered to the defendant railroad company a warranty deed of the land. At this time five of her children were living, and several were married, and had children living. The suit was originally brought against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company alone, and came, in that form, upon a reservation, before this court, at a previous term, when the court declined to hear it, and remanded it to the superior court, in order that all the children of Mrs. Hewit and their living issue might be made parties. This was subsequently effected. The plaintiff was one of the children of Mrs. Hewit, and asked for an adjudication of the rights of all claiming under either deed. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company alone appeared to defend, and filed an answer, claiming an absolute title to the land in question, under the second deed.

Morris W. Seymour, for plaintiffs.

William D. Bishop, Jr., for defendant.

BALDWIN, J. (after stating the facts). Deeds, like all other contracts, are to be construed so as to carry out the intent of the parties to then;, if this be permissible under the rules of law. In the quitclaim deed given by S. H. Hurd, in 1886, the intent is stated to be to release his title to his sister's children. She then had six living, and it would have been a simple matter, had that been his sole purpose, to make the conveyance directly to them. The language of the deed, however, is such as to show that there was a further intent to provide for the contingency of the death of any of them during their mother's life. So long as...