Hunter v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 18 January 1898
• Citation: 142 Mo. 310,44 S.W. 250
• Parties: HUNTER et al. v. PATTERSON et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

44 S.W. 250

142 Mo. 310

HUNTER et al. v. PATTERSON et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

January 18, 1898.

DEEDS — CONSTRUCTION — NATURE OF ESTATE GRANTED.

1. Following the premises of a deed came a clause granting the property to party of the second part, and to the "heirs of his body, forever." The printed words "and his heirs and assigns, forever," in the granting clause, had been erased. Both parties understood that the grantee acquired only a life estate. Held, that as the intention of the parties, gathered from all the provisions of the deed as well as their respective situations, must be given effect to, if practicable, the property was vested in the grantee in fee tail, which estate was by Rev. St. 1889, § 8836, converted into an estate for life in the grantee, with remainder in fee to the heirs of his body.

2. General words in the habendum cannot control or govern special words of limitation used in the grant or premises of a deed.

Appeal from circuit court, Andrew county; William S. Herndon, Judge.

Bill in equity by the children of Joseph S. Hunter against William G. Patterson and another for the reformation of a deed, and to recover the possession of property. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

H. S. Kelley and W. G. Hine, for appellants. Booher & Williams, for respondents.

ROBINSON, J.

This is a suit in equity, instituted in the Andrew circuit court by the children and heirs of the body of Joseph S. Hunter, deceased, to correct an alleged mistake in a deed executed by Joseph Hunter, deceased, on January 19, 1858, whereby he conveyed to his son Joseph S. Hunter the N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 1, township 59, range 36, in Andrew county, instead of the N. W. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of said section, which the petition alleges is the correct description of the property intended to be conveyed, and to recover possession of the same, with the rents and profits. The defendants are purchasers of the last-named premises from Joseph S. Hunter, with notice of plaintiffs' rights therein. The deed under consideration, so far as it is necessary to set it out for the purposes of this case, is as follows: "This deed, made and entered into this nineteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, by and between Joseph Hunter, of the county of Andrew and state of Missouri, of the first part, and Joseph S. Hunter, of the county of Andrew and state of Missouri, of the second part, witnesseth: That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to him in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, have given, granted, bargained, and sold, and by these presents do give, grant, bargain, sell, convey, and confirm, unto him, the said party of the second part, a certain tract, piece, or parcel of land, lying and being in the county of Andrew and state of Missouri, to wit, the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section No. one (1), in congressional township No. fifty-nine (59), of range No. thirty-six (36), containing forty acres, more or less, which real estate or land is hereby granted and conveyed to the said party of the second part, and to the heirs of his body, forever, with all and singular the appurtenances thereto belonging. To have and to hold the said tract, piece, or parcel of land, with all the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining, unto him, the said party, and to his heirs and assigns, forever; and the said parties of the first part, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, does covenant and agree that he will warrant and forever defend the titles to the said tract, piece, or parcel of land, and every part thereof, unto him, the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, against the lawful claim or claims of all persons whatsoever claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof." The answer of William G. Patterson was — First, a general denial; second, in substance, that the deed sought to be reformed was never accepted by the grantee, Joseph S. Hunter, and that the words of limitation, "to the heirs of his body," were inserted therein without the knowledge or consent of said Joseph S. Hunter, and in fraud of his rights, etc.; and, further, that the heirs of the body of said grantee have no legal or equitable interest in the premises intended to be conveyed thereby. The defendant Warren Patterson, in his answer, denied generally the allegations of the petition. The circuit court, after hearing the evidence, found that there was a mutual mistake in the deed, as alleged in the petition; that plaintiffs were heirs of the body of Joseph S. Hunter, who died in January, 1893; and that the defendants were purchasers from the Hunters, with notice of such mistake, but denied a reformation of the deed as prayed, on the ground that the deed vested an estate in fee simple in Joseph S. Hunter, and consequently the plaintiffs had no standing in court; and therefore dismissed the petition, and gave judgment in favor of the defendants for costs, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Without reciting the testimony in detail, suffice it to say that the evidence clearly and unequivocally shows that, at the time of the execution of the deed in question, Joseph Hunter was the owner of a tract of land in Andrew county, consisting of 240 acres, being in a body; and that he intended to convey the south 40 acres of it to his son Joseph S. Hunter, but that, by a mistake in drafting the deed, the N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 1 was inserted, instead of the N. W. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of said section, which was intended to be conveyed by said deed. Thereupon Joseph S. Hunter took possession of said south 40, the premises in controversy, built a house thereon, and continued in possession thereof and to reside thereon, with his wife and family, for five years, making valuable and lasting improvements thereon. The mistake in the description of the land was not discovered until 1867, nearly nine years after the date of the deed. In the meantime, however, Joseph Hunter had conveyed certain land to defendant William Patterson, including the 40-acre tract so conveyed to Joseph S. Hunter by mistake. Afterwards, in March, 1867, Joseph S. Hunter brought suit against Joseph Hunter and the defendant William Patterson, in the circuit court of Andrew county, praying for a decree vesting in him all the title and interest of said Joseph Hunter and William Patterson to the land in question. The defendants in said suit then, by their answer, which was read in evidence in this case, after specifically denying the allegations of the petition, averred, in substance, that on June 19, 1858, Joseph Hunter voluntarily gave and attempted to convey to Joseph S. Hunter a life estate in the south 40-acre tract of the Joseph Hunter farm, but, by mutual mistake, the deed conveyed the N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 1, instead of the N. W. ¼ of the S. E. ¼, which the answer averred was the correct description of the property intended to be conveyed, coupled with the averment that on January 7, 1867, said Joseph Hunter, in order to protect said Patterson against loss on account of the mistake in his deed, conveyed to him the land now in controversy; thus showing that defendant William Patterson was well aware of, and had due notice of, such mistake, and that a life estate only was intended to be conveyed thereby. In March, 1868, Joseph S. Hunter and wife executed a quitclaim deed to the defendant William Patterson for the premises in controversy, and thereupon the case against Patterson and Joseph Hunter was dismissed. On April 10, 1889, the defendant William Patterson conveyed this land to his son, the defendant Warren Patterson, who entered into possession of the premises, and...