Long v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 30020.
Decision Date | 03 March 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 30020.,30020. |
Citation | 57 S.W.2d 1071 |
Parties | MARY L. LONG, DANIEL R. LONG and LILLIAN LONG, Minors, by their Guardian, MARY L. LONG, Appellants, v. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, and the CURATORS OF CENTRAL COLLEGE, a Corporation. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. Moses N. Sale, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
R.M. Nichols for appellants.
(1) The construction of deeds and wills are governed by the same rule. Walton v. Drumtra, 150 Mo. 489; Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281; Armor v. Fry, 226 Mo. 673; Driskill v. Ashby, 259 Mo. 7; Johnson v. Frank, 260 Mo. 442. (2) The apparent further limitation, "if she shall die before marriage, or without leaving any child or children her surviving, then she shall enjoy the estate during her natural life only, after the determination of the life estate in said property, shall pass to and vest in the St. Louis Union Trust Company," is void, for the reason that the limitation is after the fee-simple title had fully vested in Mary Margaret Lewis (now Long) and her two children. Weed v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59; Chew v. Keller, 100 Mo. 362; Gannon v. Albright, 183 Mo. 238; Papin v. Piednoir, 205 Mo. 521; Jackson v. Little, 213 Mo. 598; Gibson v. Gibson, 239 Mo. 490; In re McClelland Estate, 257 S.W. 808. (3) The words "give, grant, alien, convey and confirm." The words "said remainder in fee ... intended to be conveyed to said Mary Margaret Lewis ... is the full remainder in fee." The words, "she shall have a child or children, then the remainder in fee shall vest in her and said child or children, in equal shares, share and share alike, absolutely, and in fee simple forever." The claimed clause of defeasance, "if she shall die before marriage, or without leaving any child or children her surviving, then she shall enjoy the said estate during her natural life only," when contrasted with the absolute gift, as culled from the language preceding, would be insufficient to cut down the absolute estate when it appears that she has married and has had children. Green v. Sutton, 50 Mo. 186; State ex rel. v. Tolson, 73 Mo. 320; Wead v. Gray, 78 Mo. 59; Chew v. Keller, 100 Mo. 378; Cornwell v. Orton, 126 Mo. 355; Cornwell v. Wulf, 148 Mo. 542; Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281; Roth v. Rauschenbusch, 173 Mo. 582; Gannon v. Albright, 183 Mo. 238; Seiver v. Woodson, 205 Mo. 202; Papin v. Piednoir, 205 Mo. 521; Jackson v. Littell, 213 Mo. 589.
Wilfley, Williams & Nelson for respondents.
(1) The rule for the construction of deeds is that the intention of the parties is to be ascertained by considering all the provisions of the deed, as well as the situation of the parties, and then to give effect to such intention, from the whole instrument. Devlin on Deeds (2 Ed.) sec. 836; Walter v. Drumtra, 152 Mo. 489; Long v. Timms, 107 Mo. 519; McCullock v. Holmes, 111 Mo. 447. (2) An estate may be created in fee, subject to defeasance, when the clear and unequivocal language of the deed indicates such intention of the grantor. Sevier v. Woodson, 205 Mo. 202; Sorenson v. Boorman, 297 S.W. 70; Lockney v. Campbell, 189 S.W. 1174. (3) When an instrument conveys a defeasible fee, with limitation over in favor of another, upon contingency of the death of the grantee "without having been married or having married shall die without leaving any child or children surviving her," the estate cannot finally be determined until the death of said grantee. Lockney v. Campbell, 189 S.W. 1174; Brown v. Tuschoff, 235 Mo. 458; Collier v. Archer, 258 Mo. 389; Gannon v. Pank, 200 Mo. 75; Yocum v. Siler, 160 Mo. 281; Gannon v. Albright, 183 Mo. 238.
This case comes to the writer on reassignment. It is an action to determine title to certain real estate in the city of St. Louis. The decision depends upon the construction of the following deed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Long v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
... 57 S.W.2d 1071 332 Mo. 288 Mary L. Long, Daniel R. Long and Lillian Long, Minors, by their Guardian, Mary L. Long, Appellants, v. St. Louis Union Trust Company, a Corporation, and the Curators of Central College, a Corporation No. 30020 Supreme Court of Missouri March 3, 1933 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Moses N ... Sale , Judge ... ... Affirmed ... R ... M. Nichols for appellants ... (1) The ... construction ... ...
-
National City Bank of St. Louis v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
... ... for the policy the insured agreed to pay the premium long ... before it was due." ... II. The ... instant case ... ...
-
Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co.
... ... the application for the policy the insured agreed to pay the premium long before it was due." ... II. The instant case is ... ...
-
Hutchison v. Goff
...and found upon a consideration of all the provisions contained in the deed. Davidson v. Eubanks, supra; Long v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 332 Mo. 288, 293, 57 S.W.2d 1071. If the parties to this deed, the grantor and, more particularly in this case, the grantees, had intended that the husb......