Scott v. Brown
| Decision Date | 01 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10014. |
| Citation | 206 P. 572,71 Colo. 275 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. BROWN. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Yuma County; L. C. Stephenson, Judge.
Proceedings by Clara E. Brown against Lincoln R. Scott to register title to certain land. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Munson & Munson, of Sterling, for plaintiff in error.
John F Mail, of Denver, for defendant in error.
In June, 1920, Clara E. Brown instituted proceedings under the Torrens Act (Laws 1903, p. 311), in the district court of Yuma county, for the registration of title to certain land. Scott answered, among other things setting up the following contract:
'Lincoln R. Scott.
[Seal.]'
The district court ordered the title registered in the petitioner, free from all claims of Scott. It should have been registered in her and Scott as tenants in common. The contract is not a mere contract to convey; it is, in effect, a conveyance each to the other of one-half his or her interest. No other interpretation can be given to the words:
'That when title is perfected and from this date each consents with the other to be equal owners of said land.
This is seen by supposing a deed between these parties with all formalities--the twelve parts of the deed of conveyance--whereby each, in consideration of the act of the other, grants, bargains, sells, and conveys to the other the undivided one-half of his or her interest, whatsoever that may be. The net result of such a formal deed would be exactly what is expressed in the above-quoted clause, 'each consents with the other to be equal owners of said land.' Nothing essential to a conveyance is lacking. No particular form of words or formality is necessary to pass the title to real estate. Horton v. Murden, 117 Ga. 72, 43 S.E. 786; Hunt v. Johnson, 44 N.Y. 27, 4 Am.Rep. 631; 18 C.J. 178, 179. The intent manifested by the instrument controls. Nicholson v. Dillabaugh, 21 U. C., Q. B., 591, 594.
And when parties, having each some sort of claim to real estate mutually agree that from thenceforth they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dennen v. Searle
...deed for lack of a sufficient granting clause. See cases such as Shadden v. Zimmerlee, 401 Ill. 118, 121, 81 N.E.2d 477; Scott v. Brown, 71 Colo. 275, 277, 206 P. 572; Horton v. Murden, 117 Ga. 72, 75, 43 S.E. 786; Folk v. Varn, 9 Rich. Eq. 303, 310 The defendant further claims that the use......
-
Garvin v. Pettigrew
...299, 77 P.2d 719; McCullough v. Burks, 185 Okl. 502, 94 P.2d 541; McCullough v. Almach, 1941, 188 Okl. 434, 110 P.2d 295; Scott v. Brown, 1922, 71 Colo. 275, 206 P. 572; Callahan v. Martin, 1935, 3 Cal.2d 110, 43 P.2d 788, 101 A.L.R. 871; Macklin v. Brittain, 1940, 37 Cal.App.2d 120, 98 P.2......
-
Pope v. Burgess
... ... words, or words in common parlance or language of a similar ... import must be used. Waller v. Brown, 197 N.C. 508, ... 149 S.E. 687; Armfield v. Walker, 27 N.C. 580; ... Cobb v. [230 N.C. 326] Hines, 44 N.C. 343, ... 59 Am. Dec. 559; Scott v ... ...
-
Hamilton v. Ertl
...court; however, the intention is clear, and such being the case the form of conveyance is not of paramount importance. In Scott v. Brown, 71 Colo. 275, 206 P. 572, 573, we '* * * It should have been registered in her and Scott as tenants in common. The contract is not a mere contract to con......
-
CHAPTER 2 ACQUIRING EXPRESS RIGHTS-OF-WAY: DRAFTING CONSIDERATIONS
...of Denver v. Allard, 182 Colo. 297 (1973), 513 P.2d 445. [84] Jabour v. Toppino, 293 So.2d 123, 126 (Fla. App. 1974). [85] Scott v. Brown, 71 Colo. 275, 206 P. 572 (1922). [86] McGuire v. Crockett, 112 Colo. 552, 151 P.2d 326 (1944); Sims v. Sperry, 835 P.2d 565 (1992). [87] See generally, ......