Johnson v. Barham
| Decision Date | 18 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 234,234 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHNSON et ux. v. BARHAM et ux. |
Leon G. Stevens, Elmer J. Wellons, Smithfield, for plaintiffs appellants.
Wellons, Martin & Wellons, Smithfield, for defendants appellees.
The sole assignment of error on this appeal is based upon exception to the signing of the judgment. Such exception challenges only the conclusions of law upon facts found by the court. Smith v. Davis, 228 N.C. 172, 45 S.E.2d 51, 174 A.L.R. 643, and cases there cited directly and by reference. See also Town of Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 58 S.E.2d 351.
Accordingly two questions of law, on which the correctness of the judgment depends, are presented by appellant for decision.
First: Did the court err in holding that, by the terms of the deed in question, H. M. Richardson conveyed his curtesy interest in the whole tract of land therein described?
A reading of the deed, in the light of applicable principles of law, lead to a negative answer to this question. Artis v. Artis, 228 N.C. 754, 47 S.E.2d 228, and cases cited.
The words used in the granting clause (1) 'to said R. E. Barham, his heirs and assigns', (2) in the habendum 'to the said R. E. Barham, his heirs and assigns, to their only use and behoof forever', and (3) in the warranty 'said R. E. Barham, his heirs and assigns' clearly and unqualifiedly convey, and relate to a conveyance of a fee simple estate. Standing alone, the operative clauses of the deed constitute an unrestricted conveyance of the land described, that of a conveyance in fee simple. Whitley v. Arenson, 219 N.C. 121, 12 S.E.2d 906. Ordinarily the premises and granting clauses designate the grantee and the thing granted--while the habendum clause relates to the quantum of the estate. 'The granting clause is the very essence of the contract', 16 Am.Jur. 567, Bryant v. Shields, 220 N.C. 628, 18 S.E.2d 157. And the habendum, in the present case, is in harmony with the granting clause.
Thus the granting clause and the habendum are sufficient in wording to convey whatever interest the grantors had in the land conveyed. Moreover, the paragraph reading, 'The grantor, H. M. Richardson, does by this instrument convey to the grantee, R. E. Barham, his curtesy and lifetime right in and to the above described tract of land', if given effect, clearly covers the estate by curtesy in the 'whole tract of land'. The only tract of land 'above described' in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blalock, In re
...Co., 232 N.C. 412, 61 S.E.2d 96; Halifax Paper Co. v. Roanoke Rapids Sanitary Dist., 232 N.C. 421, 61 S.E.2d 378; Johnson v. Barham, 232 N.C. 508, 61 S.E.2d 374; Hoover v. Crotts, 232 N.C. 617, 61 S.E.2d 705; Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E.2d 916; Gibson v. Central Mfrs.' Mut. Ins. ......
-
Weaver v. Morgan
...S.E.2d 351, and cases cited; also Halifax Paper Co. v. Roanoke Sanitary District, 232 N.C. 421, 61 S.E.2d 378, ante; Johnson v. Barham, 232 N.C. 508, 61 S.E.2d 374, ante. In the absence of proper exceptions to the finding of fact on which a judgment is based, an exception to the signing of ......
-
Burns v. Crump
...land conveyed was ineffective. Artis v. Artis, 228 N.C. 754, 47 S.E.2d 228; Pilley v. Smith, 230 N.C. 62, 51 S.E.2d 923; Johnson v. Barham, 232 N.C. 508, 61 S.E.2d 374; Jeffries v. Parker, 236 N.C. 756, 73 S.E.2d 783. Therefore, on 1 June 1944, when J. P. Gragg joined with Effie Sims, widow......
- State v. Holbrook, 218