Williams v. Owen
Decision Date | 24 October 1888 |
Citation | 18 N.E. 389,116 Ind. 70 |
Parties | Williams et al. v. Owen et al. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Posey county. William F. Barrett, Judge.Wm. P. Edson and Frank D. Wimmer, for appellants. Hovey & Menzies and Ernest Dale Owen, for appellees.
The question in this case is whether Zephaniah Williams had such an estate in the land granted to him by William Williams as authorized the sheriff to seize and sell it upon execution. The deed, omitting the formal parts, reads thus: It is a familiar rule that all the parts of a deed must be construed together, and, if it can be avoided, no part shall be deemed ineffective. The clause in the deed before us which reads thus, “At his death my grandchildren are to have the same in fee-simple, after my death, as above stated,” is sufficient to vest in Zephaniah Williams a life-estate, and it is not inconsistent with the other provisions of the deed. It is in truth consistent with them, for the general rule is that the grant of the income of land carries an estate in the land itself. Reed v. Reed, 9 Mass. 372;Fox v. Phelps, 17 Wend. 393; 2 Redf. Wills, (2d Ed.) 334; 3 Washb. Real Prop. (5th Ed.) 405-565. There is therefore a grant of an estate in the land itself; for, taking all the provisions of the deed together, it is clear, as Kenyon, C. J., said in Rex v. Inhabitants, etc., 4 Term R. 181, that they show “that the whole estate was intended to be reserved to him.” The case of Stout v. Dunning, 72 Ind. 343, carries the rule much further than we are required to do here, and we cannot reverse this judgment without overruling that case, which we are not inclined to do. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skinner v. Spann
...been well affirmed and sustained by the authorities. See Thompson v. Schenck, 16 Ind. 194;Stout v. Dunning, 72 Ind. 343;Williams v. Owen, 116 Ind. 71, 18 N. E. 389;Miller v. Wohlford, 119 Ind. 305, 21 N. E. 894;Bowen v. Swander, 121 Ind. 164, 22 N. E. 725;Jenkins v. Compton, 123 Ind. 117, 2......
-
Skinner v. Spann
... ... authorities. See Thompson v. Schenck, ... supra ; Stout v. Dunning ... (1880), 72 Ind. 343; Williams v. Owen ... (1888), 116 Ind. 70, 18 N.E. 389; Miller v ... Wohlford (1889), 119 Ind. 305, 21 N.E. 894; ... Bowen v. Swander (1889), ... ...
-
McCall v. Nettles
... ... to the reservation of a life estate in the land, and properly ... so, we think.' See, Williams v. Owens, 116 Ind ... 70, 18 N.E. 389; Lake v. Sealy, 231 Ala. 466, 165 ... So. 399; 90 A.L.R. 772; 131 A.L.R. 1372; McIntosh v ... Vail, 126 ... ...
-
Powe v. Payne
...of a life estate in the land, and properly so, we think. Reed v. Reed, 9 Mass. 372; Fox v. Phelps, 17 Wend, (N. Y.) 393; Williams v. Owen, 116 Ind. 70, 18 N.E. 389; 3 Washburn, Real Property (5th Ed.) 405; 18 C.J. Previously, in 1914, 1915, and 1917, he had executed and delivered to his son......