Malin v. Rolfe
Decision Date | 29 March 1890 |
Parties | MALIN v. ROLFE |
Court | Arkansas 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.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First National Bank v. Waddell
...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
... ... 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
...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
...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......