In Re Dixon.

• Decision Date: 20 September 1911
• Citation: 156 N.C. 26,72 S.E. 71
• Parties: In re DIXON.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

72 S.E. 71

156 N.C. 26

In re DIXON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 20, 1911.

1. Deeds (§§ 108, 97^*)—Reservations—Validity.

There was a valid reservation of a life estate, so that the deed did not become effective until the death of the grantor and his wife, where it conveyed a tract to the grantor's daughter, "reserving a life interest for myself and wife * * * in the above-described land"; there being no repugnancy between the granting clause and the reservation.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. 294-308, 267-273; Dec. Dig. §§ 108, 97.*]

2. Life Estates (5 15*)—Rents—RIghts of Remaindermen.

While a reservation in a deed to grantor's daughter of a life interest in grantor and his wife could not operate as a conveyance to the wife, the question of title to the rents between the death of grantor and that of his wife concerned only their personal representatives and not the guardian of the child of the grantee, who had died.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Life Estates, Cent. Dig. §§ 21, 34, 35; Dec. Dig. § 15.*]

3. Curtesy (§ 4*)—Right—Seisin of Wife.

Where grantor conveyed land to his daughter, reserving a life interest in himself and wife, but the daughter died before grantor and his wife, she was never seised of the land, title having passed directly to her heirs, so that her husband did not take curtesy therein.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Curtesy, Cent. Dig. §§ 6-8; Dec. Dig. § 4.*]

4. Guardian and Ward (§ 25*)—Removal of Guardian—Failure to Account.

Under Revisal 1905, § 1806, authorizing the clerk of the superior court to remove a guardian from office upon his failure to account, pursuant to the order of the clerk, a guardian's refusal to account for rents and profits of ward's land, and his improper claim to the rent adverse to the ward, was ground for his removal.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Guardian and Ward, Cent. Dig. §§ 78-98; Dec. Dig. § 25.*]

5. Deeds (§ 90*)—Construction—Intent of Parties.

The court will examine the entire deed and construe it as a whole, to effectuate the intent of the parties.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. § 236; Dec. Dig. § 90.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Greene County; Ferguson, Judge.

On application of Roberta C. Dixon to remove a guardian. From a judgment denying the application, the ward appeals. Reversed.

George M. Lindsay, for appellant

Ay-cock & Winston and T. C. Wooten, for appellee J. W. Dixon.

CLARK, C. J. The clerk of the superior court, after citation to J. W. Dixon, guardian of Roberta Dixon, and upon his answer filed, removed him from his guardianship upon the ground that he had failed to file his account as guardian, and, further, because said guardian claimed an interest in the property adverse to his ward. On appeal of the judge, this order was reversed, and the ward, Roberta C. Dixon, appealed to this court, prosecuting said appeal through her guardian ad litem, appointed by the court by consent.

It is found by the judge upon facts admitted that Robert A. L, Carr executed a deed to his daughter, the mother of the ward, Roberta Dixon; that in said deed, after the warranty clause, said grantor added, "I, the said R. A L. Carr, reserving a life interest for myself and wife, Sarah A. L. Carr, in the above described land." The grantee, the mother of said ward, and the daughter of the grantor, died first of all, then the grantor, and lastly his wife died. It being admitted that there was birth of issue of the marriage of the grantee in said deed, J. W. Dixon, the guardian, contended that he was entitled to the rents and profits of said land as tenant by the curtesy, and was not accountable to said ward for said rents.

The reservation in the deed is valid, and said deed did not become effective till after the death of the grantor and his wife. It is true that the exception in favor of the grantor's wife could not operate as a conveyance to her, but the question as to the title to rents and profits after death of the grantor and until the death of his widow is a question to be settled between their personal representatives, and in no wise concerns the guardian, J. W. Dixon.

The sole question as to him is whether he became tenant by the curtesy of this land. His wife having predeceased the gran-tor, his wife was never seised of the premises, and, upon the expiration of the particular estate by the death of Mrs. Carr, the title passed directly to Roberta Dixon, as heir at law of her mother. J. W. Dixon's...