Waterman v. Andrews

• Decision Date: 31 December 1884
• Citation: 14 R.I. 589
• Parties: NATHAN WATERMAN et al. v. BENJAMIN ANDREWS.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

14 R.I. 589

NATHAN WATERMAN et al. v. BENJAMIN ANDREWS.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

December 31, 1884

When a deed contains inconsistent clauses, courts in construing it will consider the whole instrument and the intentions of its maker, subject to the rules of law. If all its parts cannot stand, those will be rejected which oppose the maker's intentions. If its language can be interpreted in different ways, courts will look at the circumstances of its execution and extrinsic evidence is admissible to enable them to do this. If the interpretation still remains doubtful, the deed will be construed in favor of the grantee.

A deed of partition between cotenants gave an area and boundaries which latter excluded a part of the area. The area given agreed with the result found by adding together the grants made to the original owner and deducting therefrom the grants made by him. No reason appeared why any part of the area should have been retained as common property. The grantee of the deed of partition entered on and for more than twenty five years occupied the whole area.

Held, that the whole area passed by the deed of partition.

A reference in one deed to another " for a more particular description" of the premises conveyed, incorporates into the former whatever is contained in the latter.

In ejectment, if several plaintiffs join, all must be entitled to possession, otherwise by the general rule judgment must be given for the defendant.

This rule is not affected by Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 230, § 1.

But this rule is modified by Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 204, § 34 which provides " that no action shall be defeated by the misjoinder of parties, if the matter in controversy can be properly dealt with and settled between the parties before the court, and the court may order any party improperly joined in any action to be stricken out."

Hence, when, of several plaintiffs, only two were found entitled:

Held, that the court, on motion, would allow amendment by striking out the other plaintiffs.

Held, further, that this would be done, although the two plaintiffs had in the suit set up title to a larger tract, including the locus in dispute, which was inconsistent with the title which they were found to validly hold.

In ejectment, the defendant's plea of the title in himself through adverse possession, dispenses with further proof of ouster.

TRESPASS AND EJECTMENT. Heard by the court, jury trial being waived.

The case turned on the interpretation to be given to the following deed:

" Know all men by these presents, that we, William F. Waterman and Sophia Waterman, both of Cranston, in the County of Providence and State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in consideration of a quitclaim deed to us made and the sum of one dollar to us paid by our brother, Nathan Waterman, of said Cranston, the receipt whereof we do hereby acknowledge, have remised, released, and forever quitclaim, and by these presents do remise, release, and forever quitclaim unto him the said Nathan Waterman, his heirs and assigns forever, all our right, title, claim, and interest in and to a certain tract of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in said Cranston, containing about forty six acres: bounded northerly and westerly on the Middle Road, so called, from Providence to East Greenwich, and on the Providence and Pawcatuck Turnpike Road; easterly, partly on land of Thomas Grace, partly on land of Robert Grinnell, and partly on land of Philip Paine; southerly, partly on land of said Grinnell and partly on land of said Paine, being the home estate of which our father died possessed.

To have and to hold the same, together with all the privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, to him the said Nathan Waterman, his heirs and assigns forever.

And I, Amey Waterman, wife of said William F. Waterman, for the consideration aforesaid paid as aforesaid, do hereby release and quitclaim my right of dower in and power of thirds in and to the premises aforesaid, to him the said Nathan Waterman, his heirs and assigns forever.

In witness whereof we, the said William F. Waterman, Sophia Waterman, and Amey Waterman, have hereunto set our hands and seals this twentieth day of March, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and thirty seven.

" WILLIAM F. WATERMAN, [L. S.]

" SOPHIA WATERMAN, [L. S.]

" AMEY WATERMAN [L. S.]

" Signed, sealed, and delivered, in presence of PHILIP PAINE, JESSE HOWARD.

Providence, Sc. In Cranston, March 20, 1837, then William F. Waterman and Sophia Waterman severally acknowledged the foregoing instrument by them subscribed to be their voluntary act and deed.

" Before me, JESSE HOWARD, T. Clerk .

" Recorded March 20, 1837."

The facts involved are stated in the opinion of the court.

James Tillinghast, for plaintiffs.

Francis W. Miner & John F. Lonsdale, for defendant.

MATTESON J.

This is an action of trespass and ejectment, the facts in which, as they appeared on the hearing, were as follows, namely: On the 20th day of March, 1837, William F. Waterman, Sophia Waterman, and Nathan Waterman, the children of William Waterman, then deceased, were the owners of two farms, one known as the home estate of Christopher Waterman, then deceased, devised to them by him and containing about sixty five acres; the other known as the home estate of their father, the said William Waterman, descended to them from him, and containing forty six acres. It was agreed between them, that William F. and Sophia should have the Christopher Waterman farm, and that Nathan should have the William Waterman farm. In pursuance of this agreement, Nathan, on the date named, quitclaimed to William F. and Sophia his interest in the Christopher Waterman home estate, and the said William F. and Sophia, on the same date, quitclaimed to Nathan their interest in the home estate of their father. In each of these quitclaim deeds the consideration named was the other quitclaim deed and the sum of one dollar paid. The description of the premises conveyed in the deed from William F. and Sophia to Nathan was as follows: " All our right, title, claim, and interest in and to a certain tract of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in said Cranston, containing about forty six acres: bounded northerly and westerly on the Middle Road, so called, from Providence to East Greenwich, and on the Providence and Pawcatuck Turnpike Road; easterly, partly on land of Thomas Grace, partly on land of Robert Grinnell, and partly on land of Philip Paine; southerly, partly on land of said Grinnell and partly on land of said Paine, being the home estate of which our father died possessed."

The home estate of which their father, William Waterman, died possessed did contain forty six acres, that being the exact amount of his acquisitions by deed after deducting the amounts conveyed away by him, as appeared by the following list of conveyances received and made by him during his life, namely:

By deed from Zuriel Waterman, dated September 13, 1783, he acquired one tract of 26 acres.

And one tract of 4 ‘

By deed from Reuben, Elizabeth, and William Potter, dated December 7, 1787, he acquired 2 1/2 ‘

Making 32 1/2 acres.

By deed to Reuben and William Potter, dated December 7, 1787, he conveyed 3 1/2 ‘

Leaving 29 acres.

By deed from Zuriel Waterman, dated April 28, 1800, he acquired 23 1/2 ‘

Making 52 1/2 acres.

By deed to Zuriel Waterman, dated April 28, 1800, he conveyed 6 1/2 ‘

Leaving as his home estate, of which he died possessed 46 acres.

This home estate included a tract of about two acres, which was a part of the land conveyed to said William Waterman by the deed above mentioned from Zuriel Waterman, dated September 13, 1783, and which formed the northeasterly portion of the farm and adjoined Mashapaug Pond. At the time of the conveyance from William F. and Sophia to Nathan in 1837, this tract was and ever has been separated from the rest of the farm by the road or highway mentioned in the deed as the " Middle Road, so called, from Providence to East Greenwich." This tract of two acres is the locus, for the possession of which this suit is brought.

Sophia Waterman died January 27, 1840, intestate and without issue. The said Nathan and William F. survived her and were her heirs at law.

The said William F. Waterman died September 7, 1861, intestate. He left children, namely, Henry, Lydia, Elizabeth, Esther F., Olive B., William F., James, and Nathan.

Nathan Waterman occupied and retained the entire farm, including the tract in controversy, until his decease, with the exception of a piece containing one acre, more or less, being the southerly portion of the tract in controversy, which he conveyed to the defendant by deed dated May 1, 1861. He died intestate and without issue, October 1, 1862. His heirs at law were the children of William F. Waterman named above.

Of these children, Nathan, by deed dated March 18, 1863, Henry by deed dated March 21, 1863, William F., by deed dated June 24, 1863, and James, by deed also dated June 24, 1863, quitclaimed to Nancy Waterman, the widow of Nathan, their respective interests in the land conveyed to him by William F. Waterman, Senior, and Sophia, by their deed above mentioned, dated March 20, 1837. Olive B. married John C. Grinnell; Esther F. married David J. Burgess. John C. Grinnell and Olive B. Grinnell, in her right, and David J. Burgess and Esther F. Burgess, in her right, by deeds dated February 26, 1863, quitclaimed all their interest in the land conveyed to Nathan Waterman, as aforesaid, to one Cottrell T. Wilcox. ...