Meeks v. Robards

• Decision Date: 30 January 1914
• Citation: 157 Ky. 199,162 S.W. 818
• Parties: MEEKS v. ROBARDS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

162 S.W. 818

157 Ky. 199

MEEKS v. ROBARDS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 30, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boyle County.

Suit by Stephen Meeks against Jeff Robards.From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

Chas C. Fox, of Danville, and Otis M. Mather, of Hodgenville, for appellant.

W. S Lawwill and C. C. Bagby, both of Danville, for appellee.

HOBSON C.J.

On January 2, 1894, D. B.Good and wife executed the following deed: "This instrument made and entered into this the 2d day of January, 1894, by and between D. B.Goodand Margaret Good, his wife, of Danville, Boyle county, Kentucky, parties of the first part, and Ellen Meeks and Stephen Meeks of the same town, county, and state, parties of the second part, and Mrs. Fannie Moore, party of the third part, witnesseth: That the parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of six hundred and seventy-five dollars cash in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have bargained and sold and do, by these presents, bargain, sell alien, and convey to the parties of the second part the following described real estate in Danville, Boyle county, Kentucky, the same to be held by Mrs. Fannie Moore in trust for the sole use and benefit of the parties of the second part, said Fannie Moore not being required to give bond as trustee, and having the right and power to sell and dispose of said hereinafter described property whenever she shall think it will be to the best interest of the said parties of the second part; said property is described and bounded as follows: [Here follows description.]To have and to hold said property, together with the rights privileges and appurtenances thereunto belongings, unto the parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever, under a covenant of general warranty of title.[Signed]D. B. Good.Margaret A. Good."

On October 5, 1898, Fannie Moore and her daughter, Ellen Meeks, sold the land to Nannie E. Finley, and executed to her the following deed: "This deed of conveyance made this October 5, 1898, by and between Fannie Moore and her daughter, Ellen Meeks, and Stephen Meeks, a son, of the first part, do bargain, sell, and convey their entire interest to Nannie E. Finley, of the second part, of Boyle county, Kentucky, for and in consideration of two hundred dollars ($200.00) cash in hand paid, the receipt of which we hereby part, acknowledge, the said parties of the first part, Fannie Moore and her daughter, Ellen Meeks, and son, Stephen Meeks, have this day sold a certain house and lot in Danville, Kentucky, known as the Marvin property, situated on the west side of Third street, and bounded as follows: [Here follows description.]This house and lot is described in Deed Book 25, page 343, and deed to Fannie Moore and her children, Ellen Meeks and Stephen Meeks, by D. B.Goodand his wife, Margaret A. Good.We, the parties of the first part, do grant, sell, and convey our entire interest in the said house and lot to the party of the second part, and agree to forever warrant and defend the same.In testimony whereof, witness our hands on the day and year above written."

On August 24, 1912, Stephen Meeks brought this suit against Jeff Robards, the vendee of Nannie E. Finley, to recover an undivided one-half interest in the land, alleging that he was born on February 20, 1891, and attained his majority on February 20, 1912.The circuit court dismissed his petition, and he appeals.

1.What is the effect of the deed executed by Good and wife on January 21, 1894?The rule is that in the construction of deeds the whole instrument must be looked to and effect given to the intention of the parties as shown therein, if not repugnant to any rule of law; that the intent is the essence of the instrument, not the words, or the order in which the clauses are arranged, and, when the intent is apparent, this will control, without regard to the clause in which the words are put; that all rules of construction are intended to effectuate the intention of the parties, and will not be allowed to defeat their lawful intention when apparent on the face of the instrument.Hall v. Wright,121 Ky. 16, 87 S.W. 1129, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 1185;Crews v. Glasscock,107 S.W. 237, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 913;Bowe v. Richmond,109 S.W. 359, 33 Ky. Law Rep. 173;Kelly v. Parsons,127 S.W. 792;Virginia, etc., Co. v. Dye,146 Ky. 519, 142 S.W. 1057;Senters v. Big Sandy Co.,149 Ky. 11, 147 S.W. 750, and cases cited.

When we apply this rule to the deed in question, and take into consideration the whole instrument, it is not...