Hоward Gabbard et al. sued to have their title quieted to 50 acres of land. They appeal from the part of the judgment holding that the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company is the owner in fee simple of two parcels of the land containing 8.62 acres and 1.68 acres. A. H. Carpenter et al. appeal from the part of the judgment holding that the Gabbards own the fee simple title to the remainder of the 50 acres.
The Gabbards and A. H. Carpenter et al. contend that the L&N conveyances were for an easement instead of a fee. A. H. Carpenter et al. contend that the Gabbards were estopped to deny their title to the 50 acres.
Two conveyances were made by Letch and Sarah Gabbard to L&N dated June 7, 1927, and January 10, 1928, for thе parcels of 8.62 acres and 1.68 acres for $3,500 and *511 $200, respectively. These two parcels werе part of the 50-acre tract in- question which adjoined two other tracts containing 50 acres and 40-50 аcres, respectively. Subject to the L&N conveyances, these three tracts were owned by Letch and Sarah at their deaths.
On or about August 23, 1946, the Gabbard heirs executed a deed to Johnnie and Jennie Short. The Shorts contend that it was intended for this conveyance to embrace the three tracts of land and purportedly all the lands inherited by the Gabbards. The consideration was $1,600. Three tracts were dеscribed in the Short deed, but one tract was included twice. The description of the 50-acre tract out of which the L&N conveyances were made was omitted from the Short deed by mistake of the attornеy who prepared it. The Short deed contained no reference to the L&N conveyances.
Appellants A. H. Carpenter and C. E. Bush have oil and gas leases from the Shorts and L&N. Two producing oil wells have been drilled on thе part of the land claimed by L&N. This action was filed afterward.
In construing the deeds to L&N, the four corners of the deed should be looked to in order to asсertain the grantors’ intention and purpose, and all legitimate provisions contained therein will be given effect. Childers v. Welch,
The deeds to L&N are similar in form. Except for certain added provisions, the deeds are in the form of a deed of general warranty by which a fee simple title is conveyed. The descriрtions of the land are by metes and bounds. The habendum clause contains covenants of general warranty, freedom from encumbrances, quiet possession and enjoyment, and warranty of defense of title. These factors and the amount of consideration paid indicate the conveyance оf a fee simple title. The added provisions in the deeds covering removal of timber and buildings additional land for slope protection of cuts, fills, and slides, the use of stone from the grantors’ land, ingress and egress, and compensation for future damages, to remaining land are not inconsistent with a fee simple title. Under the rules of construction, the Chancellor’s holding that a fee simple title was conveyed is corrеct. In view of this holding, there is no merit in appellants’ plea of abandonment.
Appellants rely on Sherman v. Petroleum Exploration,
Appellants Johnnie and Jennie Short, grantees in the deed from the Gabbard heirs, contend that it was the intention of the parties to the deed to convey all thе remaining lands owned by Letch and Sarah at their deaths, including the 50-acre tract in question. This tract would have been reduced by the acreage conveyed to L&N. The deed was prepared by the Shorts’ attorney.
To sustain their contention, the Shorts introducеd evidence to the effect that they had entered upon the lands, resided thereon, and had cultivаted them. They claimed the entire boundary and sought to show the exercise of ownership by leasing the lаnds for oil and gas to Carpenter a.nd Bush, by cutting some timber, and by paying taxes.
The Gabbards contradicted thе Shorts’ claim that they pointed out the boundaries of the land so as to include the three tracts. The Gabbards said they sold only the “home-place” consisting of two tracts, and denied *512 that they had any part in the preparation of the deed or any notice or knowledge of the Shorts’ acts of ownership since they (Gabbards) were nonresidents. The deed purported to convey 91 acres, as opрosed to the Shorts’ claim for three tracts which would have totaled 140 or ISO acres.
The Shorts conсeded that at the time they asserted their claim of ownership the statute of limitations would have barrеd any right to sue for reformation of the deed and that they had not claimed adversely long enough to establish title. The Shorts claim that the • Gabbards’ conduct in standing by without exercising any acts of dominion over the lаnds and in failing to pay any taxes constitutes an equitable estoppel.
The Chancellor denied thе plea of equitable estoppel and held that the Gab-bards were the owners of the fee simple title to the 50-acre tract in controversy, excluding the parcels conveyed to L&N. There is substantial evidence to support such holding. CR 52.
Judgment affirmed.