Slaten v. Loyd
| Decision Date | 18 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 274 |
| Parties | Jacklyn Caperton SLATEN et al. v. Margaret Caperton LOYD. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John B. Tally, Scottsboro, for appellants.
Dawson, McGinty & Livingston, Scottsboro, for appellee.
This appeal is from a final decree in a proceeding for declaratory judgment. The suit was initiated by Margaret Caperton Loyd, complainant below and appellee here, against Jacklyn Caperton Slaten, Sarah May Caperton and others, the relief sought being a construction of two deeds forming the basis of complainant's claim of title to a tract of farm land.
The brief for appellants, designated above, contains a 'Statement of Facts' agreed to by attorneys for appellee. This is substantially as follows.
G. H. Caperton was the father of complainant, Margaret Caperton Loyd, and of Jack Caperton and three other children.
Jack Caperton has four children, the appellants Mrs. Jacklyn Caperton Slaten and Miss Sarah May Caperton, who are adults, and Tommy Caperton and Diann Caperton who are minors.
On January 4, 1940, G. H. Caperton, joined by his wife, Annie Kate Caperton, conveyed certain lands to his son, Jack Caperton, by a deed made. Complainant's Exhibit 'A' to the bill.
The granting clause in that deed is as follows:
'That we, G. H. Caperton and wife annie Kate Caperton, of the first part, in consideration of the natural love and affection we have for our son, Jack Caperton and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt Where (sic.) is hereby acknowledge, do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto our said son, Jack Caperton, of the second part, the following described property situated in Jackson County, State of Alabama, to-wit: (here follows the description of the lands) Together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments, rights, members, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining.'
The habendum clause in the deed is as follows:
'To have and to hold the same unto the said party of the second part for and during his natural life, and upon his death, such children or children of deceased children as he might leave surviving him, share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita, it being the intention hereof that children of deceased children shall take only the share their parents would have received Has (sic.) such deceased child, or children, survived said second party, but in default of such issue or children of deceased children, then to the heirs at law of G. H. Caperton, the undersigned grantor, in fee simple.'
On December 19, 1946, Jack Caperton executed a quit-claim deed back to his father, G. H. Caperton, for the property described in the above mentioned deed. (Complainant's Exhibit 'B.')
On September 8, 1951, G. H. Caperton executed his will (Complainant's Exhibit 'C') and therein devised to his daughter, Margaret Loyd, the farm known as the Jacoway Place, situated in Sections 21 and 22, Township 1, Range 7. G. H. Caperton was dead at the time the bill in this cause was filed and his will had been admitted to probate.
On January 4, 1940, G. H. Caperton and his wife made a deed of conveyance of certain other lands to their daughter, Margaret Caperton Loyd. (Complainant's Exhibit 'D.') The granting clause and the habendum clause in that deed are similar, if not identical, to the same clauses in the deed from G. H. Caperton to Jack Caperton. (Complainant's Exhibit 'A.') The two deeds, Complainant's Exhibit 'A' and Exhibit 'D' were executed on the same day, January 4, 1940.
On February 3, 1967, the solicitors for complainant, Margaret Caperton Loyd, the solicitor for the appellant respondents, and the Guardians ad litem in this proceeding entered into a submission agreement to submit the cause for decree on the bill and answer on the question as to whether or not the deeds exhibited to the bill of complaint conveyed the fee simple title to the property therein described.
On March 1, 1967, the Circuit Court of Jackson County, in Equity, rendered a decree in the cause wherein the court determined that the deeds in question conveyed the fee simple title and quieted the title in the complainant, Margaret Caperton Loyd.
From this decree the two above named respondents, Jacklyn Caperton Slaten and Sarah May Caperton, appealed.
We observe, however, that all of the respondents named in the bill, as children or grandchildren of G. H. Caperton, deceased, some of them minors, were made respondents. Only the two daughters filed an answer. The other adult respondents merely adopted the pleading of the named two. The two named respondents appealed and gave notice to the others to unit in the appeal. The minors were duly represented by guardian ad litem. None of the other respondents have appeared in this court.
The decree below recites that the purpose of the bill is to quiet title in the complainant in and to the subject property, and proceeds to a logical and detailed analysis of the granting and other clauses of the deeds involved. The court stated the conclusion reached and decreed that the granting clause in each of the deeds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peinhardt v. Peinhardt
...in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory or repugnant to it." Slaten v. Loyd, 282 Ala. 485, 487-88, 213 So. 2d 219, 220-21 (1968). In other words, the language in the granting clause would control our interpretation of the deed anyway. But, as we ex......
-
Salters v. Salters
...in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory or repugnant to it." Slaten v. Loyd, 282 Ala. 485, 487-88, 213 So.2d 219, 220-21 (1968). In the present case, the granting clause clearly and unambiguously conveys an interest only to the grantors. It must be......
-
Kennedy v. Henley
...the construction they put on the instrument, are entitled to great weight in determining what the parties intended. Slaten v. Loyd, 282 Ala. 485, 213 So.2d 219 (1968); Irwin v. Baggett, 231 Ala. 324, 164 So. 745 3. Restrictive covenants are to be construed according to the intent of the par......
-
Hubbard v. Cason
...he owned an easement in the roadway, asserting instead that he owns the roadway in fee simple. Hubbard cites Slaten v. Loyd, 282 Ala. 485, 487–88, 213 So.2d 219, 220–21 (1968), for the proposition that "the granting clause in a deed determines the interest conveyed, and unless there is repu......