Watters v. Bredin

• Decision Date: 09 January 1872
• Citation: 70 Pa. 235
• Parties: Watters <I>et al. versus</I> Bredin.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

70 Pa. 235

Watters et al. versus Bredin.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November __, 1871.

January 9, 1872.

November __ 1871.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: No. 62, to October and November Term 1871.

F. P. Rea, for plaintiffs in error.—The words of the deed make the estate conditional: Sheppard's Touchstone 122; Washburne on Real Prop. 467; Bear v. Whisler, 7 Watts 144. Forfeiture is the proper remedy: Sharon Iron Co., v. Erie, 5 Wright 341. A deed must be construed so that no part shall be rejected: Tyler v. Moore, 6 Wright 374; Wager v. Wager, 1 S. & R. 374.

W. R. Bole, for defendant in error, cited Co. Litt. 47 a; Sheppard's Touchstone, 80 et seq., 122; Whitaker v. Brown, 10 Wright 197; Jackson v. Swart, 20 Johns. R. 85; Jackson v. Dunsbaugh, 1 Johns. Cas. 91; Jackson v. Statts, 11 Johns. 351; Barrett v. French, 1 Conn. 354; Wallis v. Wallis, 4 Mass. 135; French v. French, N. H. 258; Jackson v. McKinney, 3 Wend. 233; Meanor v. McKowan, 4 W. & S. 302; Campbell v. Shrum, 3 Watts 60; Paschall v. Passmore, 3 Harris 295; Cromwell's Case, 2 Rep. 71; Fort Plain & C. P. R. Co., 1 Kernan 389.

The opinion of the court was delivered, January 9th 1872, by THOMPSON, C. J.

The intention of the grantor in this case seems to us to be quite plain upon the face of his deed to Nancy Lasher, now Bredin. Animus ad se omne ducet. The intention is what the law applies itself to in deeds.

It is a deed upon condition undoubtedly, we think, and so ought it to have been held. In what may be regarded as the premises, the property conveyed is described, and the consideration set forth as paid by the grantee is one dollar. Then follows this provision, "authorizing her (the grantee), in my name or otherwise, but at her own expense, to carry on and possess the same (the farm granted), according to the tenor herein written." Then follows this clause: "Now the condition of this assignment is such that said John Watters (the grantor) is to have a good and sufficient living out of the aforesaid farm for his natural lifetime, and all other necessary expenses, and the residue to remain in the hands of the said Nancy Lasher or her heirs; that is to say, if the above conditions are fully complied with, then this assignment to remain in full force and virtue, or otherwise to become null and void, and of none effect." I have omitted the inaccuracies in spelling, for mala grammatica non vitiat chartam.

Regarding the clause as a portion of the habendum of the deed, the qualification of the granting portion is not in excess of its office. Blackstone, vol. ii. p. 298, says, "the habendum may lessen, enlarge, explain or qualify the premises, but not totally contradict, or be repugnant to the estate granted in the premises:" Co. Litt. 21; Touchstone, cap. 5, No. 2. Now here the habendum merely explains the premises in this, that an absolute estate was not intended to be granted upon the consideration mentioned, which would be by gift, and it controls the generality of the words in the premises.

Here, then, we have a grant with a reservation to the grantor out of it, the real consideration in fact for the conveyance, with conditions to enforce it, and provisions for the defeat of the grant in case the conditions should be disregarded or not complied with by the grantee. We may not ignore all this, as the argument in support of the judgment below does. A deed must be so construed, if possible, that no part shall be rejected: 6 Wright 387; 1 S. & R. 374. This is elementary. To give these provisions effect is to require that...