Nations v. Spence

• Decision Date: 23 July 1921
• Docket Number: No. 21823.,21823.
• Citation: 235 S.W. 1064
• Parties: NATIONS et al. v. SPENCE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

235 S.W. 1064

NATIONS et al. v. SPENCE.

No. 21823.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

July 23, 1921.

Motion for Rehearing Denied December 19, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County; Frank Kelly, Judge.

Action by James H. Nations and others against K. C. Spence. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wammack & Wellborn, of Bloomfield, for appellant.

Henson & Woody, of Poplar Bluff, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

Action to quiet title to certain lands in Stoddard county. The petition is in usual form, save and except plaintiffs aver that the defendant has a life estate in one 80 acres of the land, and a conditional life estate in the remaining lands. Plaintiffs claim as remnindermen in fee, and aver that defendant claims full title in fee. The answer in the several counts thereof may be outlined as follows: (1) Admits and avers that defendant claims title in fee, and that as a fact, he has such title in fee; (2) denies that plaintiffs have any title or interest in the lands; (3) avers that plaintiffs have no right to maintain this suit, and that they are without legal capacity to maintain it; and (4) the 10-year statute of limitations. The reply placed at issue all new matter in the answer. Upon a trial before the court judgment was entered for plaintiffs and defendant has appealed.

The facts are few and simple. James Nations is the admitted common source of title. The plaintiffs are the children of James Nations, who had been married three times. His last wife was Martha J. Nations, and two deeds to her constitute the real bone of contention. In September, 1896, James Nations, joined therein by his second wife, Myra Nations, conveyed one 80 acres of the land in suit to James and Charles Walker. In November, 1897, the Walkers reconveyed this tract to Martha J. Nations, the then wife (third wife) of James Nations. In the granting clause of this deed it is said:

"Do by these presents grant, bargain, and sell and confirm unto the said party of the second part, and at her death said land is to revert or go to the heirs of James Nations, her now lawful husband."

This is followed by the description of the land. The habendum clause is the usual one in a warranty deed. The land conveyed by both conveyances was:

"The west half of lot five (5) of the northeast quarter and the east half of lot five (5) of the northwest quarter of section three (3), township twenty-seven (27), range ten (10), 80 acres."

On December 24, 1897, James Nations conveyed to Martha Nations the following lands, with the following limitations as to the title conveyed:

"All the west half of lot No. six (6) of the northeast quarter and the east half of lot No. six of the northwest quarter of section No. three (3), in township No. twenty-seven (27) north, of range ten (10) east, containing eighty (80) acres and the east half of lot five (5), and six (6) of the northeast quarter in section three (3), township twenty-seven (27), range ten (10), containing eighty acres and at the death of Martha Nations said land is to go to the heirs of James Nations. Then in case of Martha Nations should marry after the death of James Nations, said lands is to go to the heirs of James Nations."

The foregoing is a part of the granting clause in the deed, and it is followed by a habendum clause, which is the usual one in deeds of warranty.

On August 27, 1902, Martha Nations and James Nations conveyed to defendant by general warranty deed the following lands:

"All of lot five (5) and six (6) of the northeast quarter and the east half of lot five (5) and six (6) of the northwest quarter of section three (3) township 27 north, of range 10 east, containing in the aggregate 240 acres."

From the foregoing it will be seen that plaintiffs claim as remaindermen under the first two deeds mentioned, and the defendant claims title in fee simple under the deed of 1902, supra. The vital question is the construction of the first-mentioned deeds. Both James Nations and the wife Martha J. were alive at the trial of this suit, and James testified in the case. Further detail of facts will be left to the opinion.

I. This case turns very largely upon the construction which is given to the two deeds through which Martha J. Nations acquired whatever rights she had to the lands involved. To get this construction we, under the modern and now firmly fixed rule, must consider the instrument from the four corners thereof, and from this consideration get the intent and purpose of the grantor. "The intention of the grantor, as gathered from the four corners of the instrument is now the polestar of construction." Utter v. Sidman, 170 Mo. loc. cit. 294, 70 S. W. 702. At this stage of Missouri jurisprudence we are not so much interested in the order of, or the wording of the old common-law subdivisions of a deed, as we are in intent of the grantor, which intent must be gathered from the whole instrument. Each of these deeds was written by a country justice of the peace, and this is a fact which may be considered. The grantors in each signed by mark, and their want of technical knowledge of conveyances flay well be presumed. Cross v. Hoch, 149 Mo. loc. cit. 338, 50 S. W. 786. The scrivener in each case evidently used a printed form of warranty deed. The want of technical knowledge upon the part of scriveners is a fruitful source of litigation, and this fact is evidenced by the instant case. These matters, however may be considered in arriving at the intent of the grantor, either in a deed or will.

We take the deed from the Walkers first, as it falls naturally in that order. The scrivener had before him a blank warranty deed. The interpolations and erasures clearly indicate this fact, as does the full deed as printed in the record. When the scrivener reached the granting clause he used it as he found it in the blank form until he reached the words "party of the second part, ____ heirs and assigns." At this point he erased the words "heirs and assigns," and after the word "part," which, as we all know, has a short blank on which to write the word, his, her or their," as occasion may require, and after such word "part" he wrote, "and at her death said land is to revert or go to the heirs of James Nations, her now lawful husband."

When it is recalled that the Walkers signed by mark, and that the scrivener was a country justice of the peace, we have no hesitancy in saying that it was the purpose and intent of these grantors to give Martha J. Nations a life estate in the land, and to vest the remainder in fee in the children of James Nations. It is true that the living have no heirs, but the word "heirs" is frequently used by the unlettered countryman in the sense of children. The very fact that James Nations was then alive and had children at that time makes it certain that these parties (the grantors and the scrivener) used the word "heirs" in the sense of children. As was said in Eckle v. Ryland, 256 Mo. loc. cit. 440, 441, 165 S. W. 1035, 1039, in speaking of wills and deeds:

"The language used varies so materially and so much that precedents are rarely controlling in a concrete case except as they may furnish general aiding rules."

But we are not without precedent as to the use of the word "heirs" in cases like the one at bar. Heady v. Hollman, 251 Mo. loc. cit. 638, 158 S. W. 19; Johnson v. Calvert, 260 Mo. loc. cit. 455, 169 S. W. 78, 80. So while each case must stand largely upon its own peculiar facts, yet the facts of the instant case bring it within that rule announced in one of the above cases, to the effect, that:

"In this country where nearly every man who owns real estate is the father of children, few laymen are familiar with the rules of law whereby lands may pass to collateral or ancestral heirs. If we speak of `heirs' of a living landowner the mind of the layman intuitively turns to the children of the landowner."

We think that the word "heirs" as used in this deed was intended to mean the children of James Nations, and we so rule.

As to the estate intended to be conveyed to Martha J. Nations, the fact that the words "heirs and assigns" were erased helps the thought that a life estate only was intended for her. Giving to this deed from the Walkers the intent which we think they had at the, time, we are constrained to rule that the deed conveyed a life estate to Martha J. Nations, and the remainder in fee to the children of James Nations. Not only so, but that the estates in remainder were in præsenti, and vested upon the delivery of the deed.

II. What we have said of the...