Ladner v. Moran

Decision Date28 April 1941
Docket Number34551.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesLADNER v. MORAN.

Robert L. Genin, of Bay St. Louis, for appellant.

W W. Stockstill and Dan M. Russell, Jr., both of Bay St. Louis for appellee.

ALEXANDER Justice.

Appellant who was complainant in the trial court, filed a bill to cancel as a cloud upon her title to certain realty a deed from Mrs. Amanda Williams to the defendant. It was alleged that complainant was, as the adopted daughter of Mrs Williams, who died intestate, her sole heir at law, and entitled to said property. The validity of the adoption proceedings are attacked by defendant, but for reasons hereinafter stated we find no occasion to examine this contention.

The instrument in question was signed and acknowledged by Mrs. Williams in 1931, at a time when she was married and living with her husband upon said property as a homestead. Her husband did not sign the instrument which was at such time deposited by the grantor with the Hancock County Bank under conditions and directions indicated by a memorandum delivered to the grantor as follows: "This is to be delivered to no one except Mrs. Amanda Williams unless she were to die before calling for it and then it is to be delivered to Clarence Moran." A similar notation was made upon the envelope containing the deed. Mr. Williams died in 1933, and Mrs. Williams in 1935 married Vincent Moran, the father of appellee. At the time of her death in 1937, Mrs. Williams (Moran) had again become a widow. In the meantime the instrument had remained in custody of the bank subject to the directions contained in the memorandum.

Shortly before grantor's death, while she was preparing to go to a hospital for a serious operation, she delivered to appellee the memorandum given to her by the depository bank, using, according to one of the witnesses then present, the following language: "Take this card and go get your deed at the bank. I don't feel like I am coming back." Corroboration as to substantially the same language was furnished by the witnesses, one of whom testified at one time that the language was substantially as quoted, at another time stated, "She said 'Clarence take care of that card and when anything happens to me you go to the bank and get your deed and take care of everything."' The brother of appellee testified that the grantor said to him a few days after she had gone to the hospital, "I gave Clarence the card to go get his deed out of the Hancock County Bank and you see that he does that and take it and have it recorded." There were other expressions by grantor showing her understanding of the effect of her declarations. See Beasley v. Beasley, 177 Miss. 522, 171 So. 680.

It is not our purpose to respond fully to appellant's contention that the deed to the homestead was void because executed by the wife without the signature of her husband then living, for we hold that the deed was not fully executed as such until delivery. Authorities cited by appellant (Cummings v. Busby, 62 Miss. 195; Duncan v. Moore, 67 Miss. 136, 7 So. 221; Hubbard v. Sage Land & Imp. Co., 81 Miss. 616, 33 So. 413; Bolen v. Lilly & Son, 85 Miss. 344, 37 So. 811, 107 Am.St.Rep. 291; Levis-Zukoski v. McIntyre, 93 Miss. 806, 47 So. 435; Gardner v. Cook, 173 Miss. 244, 158 So. 150) deal with cases where there was actual delivery of a deed or deed of trust to the homestead without signature of the other spouse. Thus, our inquiry is not whether the instrument was void or voidable, but whether, in legal contemplation, it was a deed. The statement of the principle by which such conveyances are held void presupposes a deed, and such instrument is not a deed until delivery. In the meantime it is a mere scroll under control of the grantor who is free to withdraw it, destroy it, or complete its execution by delivery. The chancellor held that delivery of the card to appellee, under the circumstances, and in view of the declarations of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Wilbourn v. Wilbourn
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1948
    ... ... [37 So.2d 259] ... by delivery of the deed, after proper execution to the ... chancery clerk for recording. See Ladner v. Moran, ... 190 Miss. 826, 1 So.2d 781, citing Young v. Elgin, ... Miss., 27 So. 595; also Palmer v. Riggs, 197 ... Miss. 256, 19 So.2d ... ...
  • In re Estate of Hardy
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 24, 2002
    ...scroll under control of the grantor who is free to withdraw it, destroy it, or complete its execution by delivery. Ladner v. Moran, 190 Miss. 826, 1 So.2d 781, 783 (1941) (emphasis ¶ 10. James testified at the hearing that Mrs. Hardy delivered the Highway 6 deed to him at a Piccadilly cafet......
  • In re Estate of Hardy
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 4, 2005
    ...scroll under control of the grantor who is free to withdraw it, destroy it, or complete its execution by delivery. Ladner v. Moran, 190 Miss. 826, 1 So.2d 781, 783 (1941) (emphasis ¶ 11. James testified at the hearing that Mrs. Hardy delivered the Highway 6 deed to him at a Piccadilly cafet......
  • Chapman v. Chapman, 55551
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1985
    ...616 (Miss.1970) (delivery of deed by vendor to vendor's attorney does not accomplish delivery of deed to purchaser); Ladner v. Moran, 190 Miss. 826, 1 So.2d 781 (1941) (delivery of deed by grantor to bank with instructions to hold deed unless grantor called for it did not accomplish deliver......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT