Malin v. Rolfe

Decision Date29 March 1890
PartiesMALIN v. ROLFE
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

APPEAL from Cross Circuit Court, J. E. RIDDICK, Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Block & Bridges and Sanders & Watkins for appellants.

Mollie Head had no dower interest, the property was her separate estate, and if any validity is attached to the deed of trust it must pass her title. Deeds are most strongly construed against the grantor. The deed conveyed all the interest Mollie Head had. 51 Ark. 420; 43 Ark. 160; 43 Ark. 29.

N. W Norton for appellee.

No apt words of conveyance were used to convey Mollie Head's separate estate. She did not join in the operative words of the grant. 42 Ark. 357; 3 Wash. R. Pr., ch. 4, par. 20; 4 How., 225; 1 Metc., 542; 9 Mass. 161; 3 Mason, 347.

OPINION

HUGHES, J.

This is a suit in ejectment, in which the only question to be determined here is as to the sufficiency of a deed in trust executed by L. T. Head and Mollie Head his wife, who was the mother of all the appellees save Rolfe, who was their tenant to John B. Bruner as trustee of the appellants, which deed formed a part of the appellants' claim of title, a copy of which was exhibited with their complaint.

The deed bore date the 15th day of March, 1884, and was made to secure the payment of a debt, which L. T. Head owed appellants and authorized the trustee Bruner upon default to sell and convey the property, which he executed by selling and conveying the property to the appellants, who were the purchasers at the sale. Possession was admitted by the appellees, and appellants' rights to possession denied.

The exceptions to this deed were in effect that Mollie Head joined in the deed only for the purpose of relinquishing dower to such property therein described as belonged to her husband; that she did not join in the granting clause of the deed; and that as to her separate property described therein said deed was void; that it contained no words sufficient to pass her title; and that the clause in said deed in reference to Mollie Head contained no description of property or reference to property elsewhere described.

The exceptions were sustained and appellants excepted. A trial was had before the court sitting as a jury, and appellants offered to read in evidence said deed of trust, which was excluded by the court upon the trial, to which appellants excepted. Judgment was rendered for appellees, and an appeal was taken by appellants. The question to be determined is presented by the record and there is no bill of exceptions. After reciting the premises, the granting clause in the deed by the husband begins: --

"Now therefore, I, L. T. Head, for and in consideration of the premises and the sum of one dollar to me paid by John Bruner as trustee, have granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell and convey unto said John B Bruner and his assigns as trustee the lands and tenements following, to-wit:" Then follows a description of the town lots, and the provisions for sale and conveyance by the trustee of the property, upon default of payment of the amount secured by the deed of trust. After which the deed concludes in these words: "Now I, Mollie Head, wife of the said L. T. Head, for the consideration above set forth, do hereby assign, release, relinquish and quit-claim all my right, title, interest and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • First National Bank v. Waddell
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1905
    ...M. Cohn, for appellants in reply. The construction of the mortgage should be resolved against the guarantor. 1 How. 182; 2 How. 426; 53 Ark. 107; 3 Ark. 18; Ark. 703; 27 Ark. 523. The guaranty was continuous. 7 Pet. 113; 61 Mich. 327; 142 N.Y. 207; 73 N.Y. 335; 18 N.Y. 502; 24 N.Y. 64; 12 G......
  • Jackson v. Lady
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1919
    ... ... beginning to the present time. See Doe v ... Porter, 3 Ark. 18; Gullett v ... Lamberton, 6 Ark. 109; Malin v ... Rolfe, 53 Ark. 107, 13 S.W. 595; Jenkins v ... Ellis, 111 Ark. 220, 163 S.W. 524; Mt. Olive ... Stave Co. v. Handford, 112 Ark ... ...
  • Jones v. Hill
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1901
    ...acts. 53 Ark. 53. J. W. House and M. House, for appellees. The deeds of J. W. and Nancy Jones are valid. 41 Ark. 431; 51 Ark. 419; 53 Ark. 107; 43 Ark. 28. Since the constitution 1874 a married woman is bound by the terms of the deed, with or without acknowledgement. 35 Ark. 480; 36 Ark. 36......
  • Dempsey v. Davis
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1911
    ...enlarges the fee tail to a fee simple estate. 2. The habendum may enlarge or extend, but not abridge, the estate limited in the premises. 53 Ark. 107; 78 Ark. 230; Id. 209; 92 Id. 324; Elphinstone, Interp. Deeds, rule 66, p. 217. If the premises and habendum contain different express limita......
  • 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