Walker v. Walker
Citation | 77 S.E. 795,139 Ga. 547 |
Parties | WALKER et al. v. WALKER et al. (two cases). |
Decision Date | 28 February 1913 |
Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
In 1881 an owner of land executed a deed thereto. The grantees mentioned were his wife and their four children, naming them. The recited consideration was $10, and natural love and affection. After the description of the property the deed proceeded as follows: Then followed a clause warranting the premises to the grantees by name. Held, the deed created no trust estate.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. §§ 34-37; Dec. Dig. § 25.*]
Such deed did not create a life estate in the wife, with remainder over to the children.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. |§ 351, 360-365, 416-430, 434, 435; Dec. Dig. § 129.*]
It conveyed the land in fee to the wife and children named, with a provision that no division of the property should be made until after the death of the wife and the majority of the children who might live to reach majority. The fee conveyed was subject to be divested as to any grantee who might die before tbe time for division arrived. If at the time fixed for such division any grantee should be dead, leaving no children or descendant of children, the share of such deceased grantee was to be divided among those of the other grantees who should then be living, share and share alike. If the party so having died left a child or children or descendant of children, then such child or children or descendant of children should take the share of their deceased ancestor.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. §S 345-355, 416-428, 434, 435, 439, 452; Dec. Dig. § 124.*]
Under the rule prescribed by tbe Code of this state, if two clauses in a deed be, utterly inconsistent, the former must prevail; but the intention of the parties, from the whole instrument, should, if possible, be ascertained and carried into effect. Civ. Code 1910, § 4187.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. §§ 267-273, 434-447; Dec. Dig. § 97.*]
Where, after the four children of the grantor had become of age, they and their mother joined in making a warranty deed, upon a valid consideration, they could not afterward repudiate such deed and reclaim the property on the ground that, under the deed from the original grantee to them, they did not have authority to make such conveyance. They were estopped from so doing. Spalding v. Grigg, 4 Ga. 75, 85; Boisdair v. Jones, 36 Ga. 499; Allen v. Lathrop & Co., 46 Ga. 133, 137; Beard v. White, 120 Ga. 1018 (6), 48 S. E. 400; Civ. Code 1910, § 4189.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Estoppel, Cent. Dig. §§ 52-60; Dec. Dig. § 23.*]
As between the parties, a deed made as stated in the preceding headnote conveyed all of the title and interest which the grantors therein owned in the land.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. §§ 309-315, 334, 335; Dec. Dig. § 111.*]
As between a grantor and grantee the payment of a debt of the former, though barred by the statute of limitations, furnishes a valid consideration for the making of a deed by the debtor to the holder of the indebtedness. Jenkins v. German Lutheran Congregation, 58 Ga. 125; Usina & Jones v. Wilder, 58 Ga. 178 (3).
(a) The provision of the Code which declares that a wife cannot bind her separate estate for the debts of her husband does not affect the power of a widow to contract with reference to such debts after his death. Mize v. Hawkins, 54 Ga. 500.
(b) The evidence showed a sufficient consideration to support the conveyance by the children who joined with their mother in executing the deed.
(c) A contract will not be set aside, on the ground of fraud in its procurement, at the instance of one who has neither restored nor offered to restore the fruits thereof. Petty v. Brunswick & Western Ry. Co., 109 Ga. 666 (5), 35 S. E. 82.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. Dig. §§...
To continue reading
Request your trial