Taylor v. Birmingham
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 29 Pa. 306 |
| Parties | Taylor versus Birmingham. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
as tenants in common. It was to be divided by a line running north and south, equal in quantity, and to choose or cast lots for the parts. No such division was made. They made their own arrangement, by which Alexander got 98 acres and 80 perches, including the whole of the Baldwin land, not the quantity willed to him, nor by the line designated in the will. Had these brothers a right, being the owners of this land, to make their own contracts, and make their wives parties to the deeds? The wife joining in the conveyance to Wilson was a good consideration, did the joinder of the wife in the deed import nothing? In this case it is not claimed that the widow was estopped by reason of having taken under the will, for there was nothing for her to take. The whole case rests upon the written papers. These are to be construed according to their legal meaning: Ellmaker v. Ellmaker, 4 Watts 80. The intention of the grantor is the governing principle — if that is clear on the face of the deed, no extraneous facts can be admitted to control or change it: Means v. The Congregation, 3 W. & S. 303; McClure's Heirs v. Douthitt, 3 Barr 447; S. C. 6 Id. 415; Johnston v. Hart, 6 W. & S. 319; Robb v. Beaver, 8 Id. 107; Clark v. Thompson, 2 Jones 275; Stuckey v. Keefe's Executors, 2 Casey 397; Martin v. Jackson, 3 Casey 504. In this last case one-third was conveyed to husband and wife, and the other two-thirds under a decree of the court, and the wife took the whole as survivor.
The case of Stehman v. Huber, 9 Harris 260, relied on by the court below, is entirely different. There the land descended to the wife under the intestate law, and the other heirs conveyed the wife's share to the husband, wife, and the heirs of the wife. The deed only gave him a life estate, the same as the law cast upon him. There the want of a separate acknowledgment and the disability of the wife stood in the way. Alexander Taylor was sui juris, and competent to make and have such a deed made. All parties under him are estopped from claiming any other estate than that conveyed by the deed: Robb v. Beaver, 8 W. & S. 111.
The deed in this case is not a deed of partition, but of conveyance. In partition there is an implied warranty, in this there is an express one: Weiser v. Weiser, 15 Watts 279; Patterson v. Lanning, 10 Id. 135; Seaton v. Barry, 4 W. & S. 185.
Leslie and Hepburn, for defendant in error.—The argument of plaintiff in error turns principally on whether the conveyances were deeds of partition between Alexander and Wilson, or of original conveyance. They must first show some title. That was under the will; each was entitled to a moiety. Neither had any interest in the share of the other, except that it was held in common. They did not alter the title, only designated the boundaries. The line being fixed, what interest had Wilson in the share of Alexander? They were mutual releases; no title passed by the deeds. They did not hold under the deeds, but under the will of their father, and this is fully settled in Groundie v. Northampton Water Co., 7 Barr 233; Stehman v. Huber, 9 Harris 260; Werkheiser v. Werkheiser, 3 R. 326.
2. The interest of the widow ceased at her marriage. This is settled by McCullough's Appeal, 2 J. 197; 2 W. & S. 142; 10 Barr 75.
The freehold was vested in the widow under the will of Alexander, with concurrent remainders, limited to take effect on the happening of a contingency,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Kearns
...Preston v. Jones, 9 Pa. 456; Light v. Light, 21 Pa. 407; Hamilton v. Buckwalter, 2 Y. 389; Cauffman v. Cauffman, 17 S. & R. 16; Taylor v. Birmingham, 29 Pa. 306. devise to the wife, "so long as she remains my widow," was strictly a conditional limitation marking the extent of interest given......
-
Smith v. McClain
... ... ... Reversed ... Miller, ... Winter & Elam, for appellant ... Denny ... & Taylor, for appellees ... ... [146 ... Ind. 78] Monks, C. J ... Appellees ... brought this ... severalty instead of in common. Bumgardner v ... Edwards, Tr., 85 Ind. 117; Taylor v ... Birmingham, 29 Pa. 306; Dawson v ... Lawrence, 13 Ohio 543, 42 Am. Dec. 210; ... Stehman v. Huber, 21 Pa. 260." See, ... also, Yancey v. Radford, 86 Va ... ...
-
David Young's Estate
...sec. 1, P.L. 152; act of April 9, 1879, sec. 1, P.L. 16; act of June 3, 1887, sec. 1, P.L. 332; act of June 8, 1893, P.L. 344; Taylor v. Birmingham, 29 Pa. 308. Wallerstein, Wm. Henry Fox with him, for appellee. -- The assignment created an estate by entireties: Lodge v. Hamilton, 2 S. & R.......
-
In re Rhodes' Estates
... ... a vested interest, it is in such case merely substituting a ... divided share for an undivided one. See Stehman v ... Huber, 21 Pa. 260; Taylor v. Birmingham, 29 Pa ... 306. In Dexter v. Billings, 110 Pa. 135, it was ... held, as set forth in the syllabus, that a deed by a brother ... to ... ...