Beard v. Childress

Jun 15, 1842
Reporters:
Before:
Ormond

Lead Opinion

ORMOND, J.

The instrument referred to in the bill of exceptions is exceedingly ambiguous, leaving it ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‍doubtful whether it was the intention of the parties to vest the legal title in the father or in the children.

We incline, however, to the opinion, that it was intended ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‍that the legal title should be in the father, as, otherwise, it is not probable that it would have been disclosed in the bill of sale that he was acting ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‍as the trustee of his children.

From this view it follows that the decision of the Court was correct, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.





Concurrence Opinion

COLLIER, C. J.

I concur in affirming ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‍the judgment of the Circuit Court, but am mainly influenced by other reasons than those expressed by my Brother Ormond. I felt it proper to make this declaration, but do ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‍not deem it necessary to make a particular expression of my views of the case.