*1 617 Bishop v. Williams.
4-9984 S. W. 2d
Opinion February delivered 1953.
Rеhearing denied March IfJirgil Moncrief, John W. Moncrief pellant. appellee??
Arthibr R. Macom and W. A. Leach, George ejectment is an possession suit Rose Smith, brought by appellees to recover of a tract County. of land in In our view the decisive issue is whether a deed exеcuted W. E. Meacham in 1916 vested the fee grantees merely the two or gave them life estates with remainder to their heirs. The finding trial that life tenаncies court, entered existed, plaintiffs. judgment for the conveyed ninety-five
In 1916 Meacham acres to two granting brothers, H. and clause containing language: “to hold have and to to them during their natural after their death to the term herein In the fol- limitations.” and not of
term lowing year land divided the *2 the brothers Williams exсhange receiving in the now con- C. H. tract deeds, troversy. conveyed in tract to R. Wills this C. C. conveyances to later 1926, that title has appеllants. and his in 1950, the died theory upon that heirs seek to recover the land the' upon H. had a mere life terminated his which estate death. grant stаnding the apparent alone, that, at It is once ‘‘during
to the
would un-
heirs”
to their
their death
operation
the Rule
deniably convey
the fee
readily
admitted
the
fact is
Case. This
in
necessarily
they
appellees,
that
the Rule
since
but
insist
”
a word
heirs
of the term
construction
involves thе
prin-
purchase, the
rather
as one of
of limitation
than
ciple
inapplicable
recital that
Meacham’s
is rendered
recital, the
the term in
latter
he used
the
sense.
appellees say,
inten-
his
“the
shown
in
lands.”
tion ...
to
a life
the
estate
argument
in that it assumes
fallaсious
is
construction,
de
is
rule
Rule in
Case
the
determining
grantor’s
signed
in
to
the court
assist
one
true;
Rule is
But the
is
intention.
conveyor’s
applied
regard
in
to the
be
to
law,
say that in almost
it
to
Indeed,
tention.
instance the
is safe
creating a fee
Rule
being
bring
some
or testator
to
into
exаmple,
leading
Hard
other estate. For
age
Stroope,
490,W.
the deed was
303,
24 bodily
for life and then
her
M.
to Tennessee
Carroll
bodily
and if
feo,
she left
according
heirs then
to the law of descent and distribution.
course,
Of
grantors did not mean for Mrs. Carroll to take the title; but,
a rule that has bеen in force for
some six centuries, we held that to be the effect of their
conveyance. Our
have
cases
announced the doctrine so
frequently that it
property
has become a rule of
which
disregard.
we are not free to
jurisdiction
grantor’s
We know of no
which thе
permitted
application
intention is
defeat the
Rule. As Powell
work
writes
his admirable
on Real
§
“the
379,
Rale
Case is
rule of
applies dеspite
conveyor’s
explicit
law
which
most
apply.”
of his desire
it not
manifestation
trative
having conveyed
Illus
grantor,
included
in which
casеs
those
Ato
for life with remainder to his
attempts
qualify
by stating
his action
in
his
only in
create a life estate
first taker.
In
tention
uniformly
grantee
held
such instаnces
simple.
Black,
the fee
Fowler v.
136 Ill.
363,
Dingman,
N. E.
L. A.
670; Daniels v.
140 Iowa
Edgerton
118 N. W.
v. Harrison, 230 N.
Baptist
*3
E.
2d
Bullock v. Waterman St.
Soc.,
hardly
5 R. I. 273. The testator could
emрhatic
have been more
than he was Lauer v. Hoffman,
In the at bar Meacham, it is having created a fee reason of the Rule in Shelley’s Case, could not have rendered that action in- by adding effective that he intended the Williams to be mere life tenants. Nor could he achieve way by asserting that result in а more roundabout purchase. the term “heirs” was used aas word of It ‘‘ pointed applies been though out that the Rule even conveyоr specifically provides purchasers.” heirs shall take as Rest., § 312, adopted k. Hardage Comment We that view in the case, supra, approved when we this familiar Appeal, Doebler’s [the Pa. St. 9: “It inexorably Rule] declares that where the ancestor preceding freehold the same instrument, a remain- der shall not be pur- limited to the ... as given chasers. If as immediate remainder after the freehold, it shall vest as аn executed inherit- estate of immediately ance if ancestor; after some other in- terposed then estate, it shall vest in him aas remainder. possible the testator it is so, this is
Wherever prevent by any consequence declaration, plain, intention.” aof matter how Mеacham’s deed conclude that We F. and C. Williams fee title to C. They free divide the were then in common. tenants property Title to the trаct allotted between themselves. appellants, who are to these to C. possession. clearly entitled to retain Reversed аnd dismissed. (dissenting). ger- Justice McFaddin,
Ed. F. portions of the mane deed here involved read as follows: All Men Know These Presents: That E. I, W. single Meacham, man, for and in consideration of the ($2,500) twenty-five sum of hundred dollars, me paid by receipt H. Williams, hand of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grant, bargаin, do sell and convey unto H.C. Williams and to have during and to hold to them lives re mainder their death to their the term heirs herein used is a term lying county Arkansas, lands right Arkansas, NE1^, State to-wit: The Frl. N% Bayou, (17), bank of Section Seventeen SW% NE%' *4 Township (6) (4) Range Four Northern South, West, Six County, District, Arkansas.
“To have and to hold the same unto the said C. H.
unto
Williams and C. F.
as above set
and
forth
appurtenances
assigns
all
forever,
heirs and
and
owm.)
my
belonging.” (Italics
thereuntо
opinion
majority
holds that the italicized
The
words
Shelley’s
effect,
are
because “the rule
case
applies”;
agree
holding.
I
and
cannot
For
some time our Court
held that the intention of
parties,
language
deed,
as ascertained from all the
of the
govern in
of thе instrument,
should
the construction
any
anciently
rather than
hard and fast formulae
estab
Patman,
853, 141
lished.
v.
200 Ark.
W. 2d
Luther
Oil
v. Weil,
Carter
Co.
In the italicized above, the deed there are these words:
“. . . term heirs herein term purchase and not the deed itself described
Thus, what “heirs”; and time word “heirs” pears in the it meаns that deed, the heirs of O. Wil- F. take liams legal
limitations. meaning, used words to have a give and I we think should some effect to them: opinion majority but thе is that when the “Buie in Shelley’s party goes enters, case” then the intent of a give I out the window. still believe that we should effect having to what was thе clear intent of H. J. Williams **t this deed as it _ made was in expression views find in the of this Court ¡My Eversmeyer McCollum, the case of 171 Ark. S. W. 379. In that case was claimed the rule in applied, this lan- case but Justice used Hart guage : applicable only
“The rule in case conveyance used creаtes a limitation general. to the heirs of the If the limitation body grantee, is to the heirs of the the rule in apply~” does j holding I majority Therefore, dissent point on the at issue.