110 Mass. 113 | Mass. | 1872
We are of opinion that the clause in the deed,
“ reserving and giving ” to Elijah Alden “ the use of the premises during his natural life,” did not operate to vest in him any legal estate. It could not so operate, as a reservation or exception, because he was not the grantor; nor as a grant of an interest excepted, because he is not a party to the deed, in any legal sense ; nor as a covenant to stand seised to his use, because there is a bargain and sale of the entire estate to the grantees named in the deed, of whom he is not one ; nor as a feoffment to uses, because there is a valuable consideration paid by the grantees, and a fui declaration of uses in their favor. When the uses are thus de dared in the first taker, the statute of uses has never been held to execute a second use charged upon the first. 2 Washburn Real Prop. 114. Williams on Real Prop. 134, 165. Marshall v. Fisk, 6 Mass. 24. Thatcher v. Omans, 3 Pick. 521. Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374.
But the clause in the deed is sufficient to charge the estate, in the hands of the grantees, with a trust for the benefit of Elijah
The want of record of the deed, at the time of the occupation, did not prevent the acquisition of a settlement, Belchertown v. Dudley, 6 Allen, 477.
Tha case therefore shows a settlement in Conway; and there must be Judgment for the defendants.