Speight v. Askins

• Decision Date: 26 April 1907
• Parties: SPEIGHT et al. v. ASKINS et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

102 S.W. 74

SPEIGHT et al. v. ASKINS et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 26, 1907.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Obion County; John S. Cooper, Chancellor.

Bill by Ocie Speight and others against William Askins and others. From a decree of the chancellor dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Alex. N. Moore, for appellants. Lannom & Stanfield, for appellees.

SHIELDS, J.

This cause involves the title to a certain tract of land situated in Obion county, and is before us upon the appeal of the complainants from a decree of the chancellor sustaining a demurrer to their bill, and dismissing it, with costs. The facts appearing from the bill necessary to be here stated are these:

J. W. Askins, on August 26, 1885, conveyed to his wife, Addie Askins, a certain tract of land situated in Obion county; the effective and operative part of the conveyance being in these words:

"Now, therefore, I, James W. Askins, in consideration of the fact that $1,307.00, the purchase money paid for said land, was the proceeds of Addie Askins', his beloved wife's property; and whereas, the same was purchased under a direct understanding that she receive the benefits of the purchase, now, therefore, I, James W. Askins, party of the first part, in pursuance of said agreement as set forth above, do bargain, grant, sell, and convey unto the said Addie Askins and the heirs of her body begotten by me the following described tract of land lying in district No. 7 of Obion county, Tennessee, and bounded on the north by the lands of J. R. Davis, on the east by the lands of William Stanley and J. R. Davis, on the south by the lands of Frank Gardner, and on the west by the lands of Addie Askins, grantee in this conveyance, containing 95 acres more or less, and to hold the same in her own right and to her sole and separate use, free from claims of all persons whomsoever."

Subsequently he and his said wife sold about 90 acres of this land to the defendant William Askins, and on December 30, 1896, joined in conveying the same to him in fee, and he is now in the possession of the same, claiming a fee-simple title.

When James W. Askins made the conveyance to his wife, they then had living seven children, the issue of their intermarriage. After the conveyance to William Askins, Mrs. Addie Askins died intestate. The complainants are three of the daughters of J. W. and Addie Askins, and have brought this suit, their husbands joining with them, to recover three undivided sevenths of the land conveyed to William Askins. Their contention is that the conveyance of J. W. Askins to his wife and their mother, Addie Askins, vested in her a life estate in the lands conveyed, and in the then living children of J. W. and Addie Askins the remainder in fee, and is predicated upon the use of the words "heirs of her body begotten by me," in the deed.

This contention is not sound. These words, "heirs of her body begotten by me," are not words of purchase, but of limitation. They have a well-settled technical meaning, and import perpetual succession, and are construed to be a limitation over to the grantor upon an indefinite failure of issue of the particular heirs to whom the estate is granted, and under the common law create an estate in special tail. This construction of words and phrases of similar meaning such as "her bodily heirs," "the natural issue of her body," "heirs of her body," "lawful issues of her body," is a well-settled rule of property governing the vestiture of title to real estate.

And in this state, whenever an estate of general or special tail is created, whether by conveyance or devise, the party to whom the conveyance or devise is made becomes and is deemed to be seised of the lands conveyed in fee simple. Middleton v. Smith, 1 Cold. 144; ...