Rolen v. Rolen
| Decision Date | 23 February 1967 |
| Citation | 57 Tenn.App. 637,423 S.W.2d 280 |
| Parties | David Allen (Add) ROLEN v. George Ray ROLEN. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Wynn & Wynn, Sevierville, for appellant, David Allen (Add) rolen.
Hailey & Waters, H. Dennis Jarvis, Jr., Sevierville, for appellee, George Ray Rolen.
David Allen (Add) Rolen has appealed from a decree of the Chancery Court of Servier County, locating and establishing the boundary line between his land and that of his brother, defendant, George Ray Rolen.
D. C. Rolen, the father of the parties, divided his lands between his several children on August 30, 1943, retaining a life estate in favor of himself and his wife.
Complainant was conveyed land 'Beginning on the corner of Ollie Belle Rolen and D. C. Rolen thence up the ridge to the Dave Webb Corner; thence with Bench with Dave Webb line up to corner; thence from said corner out to Sandy Harrell corner; thence with Sandy Harrell to Dunn's creek; thence from corner at creek running with creek to George Ray Rolen's line; Thence running with George Ray Rolen's line back to Williams line; thence from Williams line up to corner where it corners with Ollie Belle Rolen to the beginning.' Emphasis supplied.
The italicized part of the deed is a description of complainant's eastern boundary. To locate it on the ground, it is necessary to refer to the location of the western boundary line of defendant's land.
The land conveyed to the defendant is described as 'Beginning on Dunn's Creek opposite school house on a stake joining Williams' line, Runs with Williams line out to a swamp, thence up with tenable land to ditch, thence turn with ditch to Dunn's Creek thence to the beginning.' The description italicized is the western boundary of defendant's property and is the disputed boundary line.
The evidence shows that the 'swamp', though one corner has been partially drained, is clearly defined. Tenable land adjoins the swamp on both its near (eastern edge) or its far (western edge).
The complainant insists that 'runs with Williams line out to a swamp' means the near edge of the swamp, which would give him ownership of the swamp. The defendant insists that it was the intention of his father to convey him the 'Howard Bottom', which included the swamp, and that the boundary line was the western edge of the swamp.
The swamp in dispute consists of 1.6 acres, the value of which is not shown in the record.
'It is clear from an analysis of the cases in this State dealing with the construction of deeds that the overriding purpose of all rules of construction is the ascertainment of the intention of the parties.' Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn.App. 291, 231 S.W.2d 589. This is done by considering the deed as a whole without regard to formal divisions and parts, and by giving all words in the deed their usual and appropriate meaning. Quarles v. Arthur, supra; Hardin v. Chapman, 36 Tenn.App. 343, 255 S.W.2d 707; Brown v. Brown, 45 Tenn.App. 78, 320 S.W.2d 721.
The word 'to', when used to express a boundary, ordinarily is a term of exclusion, and is always to be understood in that way, unless there is something in the conveyance which makes it manifest that it was used in a different sense. 11 C.J.S. Boundaries § 4, p. 540; 41A Words and Phrases, pp. 420--421, and cases there cited.
We find nothing within the 'four-corners' of the deed to the defendant which would indicate that the grantor intended the word 'to' to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hicks v. Cox
...covenant cannot be varied or altered by parol evidence. See Jones v. Brooks, 696 S.W.2d 885, 886 (Tenn.1985); Rolen v. Rolen, 57 Tenn.App. 637, 423 S.W.2d 280, 282 (1967); Moon v. Webb, 584 S.W.2d 803, 805 (Tenn.App.1979); In re Johnson, 187 B.R. 598, 602 It is true that restrictions on the......
-
Tenn. Valley Auth. v. W. Allan Jones Jr. & Bates Bend Farm, LLC
...of a deed, parol evidence is not admissible to contradict, add to or explain the provisions of the deed." Rolen v. Rolen, 423 S.W.2d 280, 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967). In this case, the 1877 deed unambiguously conveyed the property on the south side of the river in fee simple. The only excepti......
-
Moon v. Webb
...the terms of a written instrument which is clear and unambiguous on its face." Id. at 227, 360 S.W.2d at 483. In Rolen v. Rolen, 57 Tenn.App. 637, 423 S.W.2d 280 (1967), another boundary line dispute, the court (I)t is a settled rule that in the absence of ambiguity or irreconcilable confli......
-
Cate v. Thomas, No. W2005-00028-COA-R3-CV (TN 12/14/2005), W2005-00028-COA-R3-CV.
...provisions of a deed, parol evidence is not admissible to contradict, add or explain the provisions of the deed." Rolen v. Rolen, 423 S.W.2d 280, 282 (Tenn. Ct. App.1967). We have reviewed the 1990 Deed and the Lease, and neither document is ambiguous on its face. Consequently, the trial co......