Paoli v. Anderson, 44780

Decision Date04 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 44780,44780
PartiesBessie Stockstill PAOLI v. Janie ANDERSON et al.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Albert Sidney Johnston, Jr., Biloxi, for appellant.

Ray M. Stewart, Picayune, for appellees.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice.

This case involves a conditional delivery of a deed dated November 22, 1961, from appellant, Mrs. Bessie Stockstill Paoli, to her brother, James R. Stockstill, who died March 30, 1965. After Stockstill's death the deed was found in his lock box at the bank. Mrs. Paoli filed a bill of complaint against Janie Anderson and others, heirs at law, along with her, of her deceased brother, James R. Stockstill. She sought to cancel as a cloud on her title the deed from her to her brother of November 22, 1961. The chancery court dismissed the bill, and we affirm.

On November 1, 1961, in consideration of one dollar and other considerations James R. Stockstill conveyed by warranty deed to Mrs. Paoli the west 135 feet of the south 65 feet of Lot 2, Block H, in the City of Picayune. This deed was filed for record on November 22, 1961. It recited no conditions.

On November 22, 1961, Mrs. Paoli signed a warranty deed to Stockstill conveying the same property to him. This deed contained no restrictions or conditions. It was acknowledged by Mrs. Paoli before a notary public, and stated that she had 'signed, delivered and executed' it on the date of the instrument. The deed was filed for record by the administrator of the estate on June 15, 1965, after Stockstill's death, when it was found in his lock box at the bank.

On May 23, 1962, Mrs. Paoli executed a warranty deed to Stockstill conveying to him the west 75 feet of the south 65 feet of Lot 2, Block H, of the City of Picayune. This deed was filed for record the day after its execution.

The originals of these three deeds were found in the lock box at the bank which had been rented by Stockstill. He had its exclusive use. Moreover, the record supports a finding by the chancery court, implied from its decree against appellant, that Stockstill dealt with the property as his own. He rented part of it, and a part was blacktopped and used for a parking lot. The lessees paid Stockstill the rent and the cost of the blacktopping.

Fire insurance policies on the improvements listed Mrs. Paoli as the insured. The evidence indicated that she paid the taxes on this property for the years 1962-1964.

Mrs. Paoli offered to testify that she had an oral agreement with her brother that the deed from her to him (November 22, 1961) was not to take effect on that date, but was to become effective only if she predeceased him. The trial court sustained appellees' objection to this testimony, on the ground that the grantor could not testify as to any oral agreement which she might have had with the grantee concerning the purpose of the deed and oral conditions or restrictions on its effect.

A presumption of delivery of a deed arises from its possession by the grantee. This presumption may be rebutted by showing that there was in fact no delivery. However, this must be done by clear and convincing evidence, and there was none here. 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds §§ 115, 126 (1965).

The general rule on conditional delivery to the grantee is summarized in 6 Powell, The Law of Real Property section 897 (1965):

When a grantor 'delivers' his deed directly to the grantee but annexes to such delivery some oral condition, the great weight...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Blancett v. Blancett, 2004 NMSC 038 (NM 11/22/2004)
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • November 22, 2004
    ...of the surrounding circumstances to evaluate whether grantor indeed intended to make a present transfer); cf. Paoli v. Anderson, 208 So. 2d 167, 168-69 (Miss. 1968) (holding that the presumption of valid delivery from grantee's possession of a deed, combined with the rule against parol evid......
  • Ralli-Coney, Inc. v. Gates
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 12, 1976
    ...when it is clear on its face. See, e.g., Allen v. Allen, Miss.Sup.Ct., 1936, 175 Miss. 735, 168 So. 658; accord, Paoli v. Anderson, Miss.Sup.Ct., 1968, 208 So.2d 167; Fuqua v. Mills, 1954, 221 Miss. 436, 73 So.2d The defendants rely on Dunavant Enterprises, Inc. v. Ford, Miss.Sup.Ct., 1974,......
  • Reeves v. Reeves, 51269
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1979
    ...of delivery. However, those presumptions are rebuttable presumptions and proof that there was no delivery overcomes same. Paoli v. Anderson, 208 So.2d 167 (Miss.1968); McMillan v. Gibson, 222 Miss. 408, 76 So.2d 239 (1954); Lynch v. Lynch, 121 Miss. 752, 83 So. 807 It is well established th......

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