*1 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, Inlow v. Herren. II. The Thompson tract involved in the case, con- stituted the homestead. Sarah Ida remained in Betts °f this until she con 1914, when Possessi°n veyed Limitations Thompson. Whether viewed respect quarantine right, to a homestead or came neither years to an end more than bringing ten before the these suits. Ida Sarah Betts remarried in 1911.
III. The election attempted Sarah Ida Betts proceeded was futile. The finding trial court on his that legitimate was the child M. of John aPPellant Election theory Betts. this On an election under Section (Sec. 1919) Revised Statutes 1899 321, R. S. entirely against appellant, futile as electing since the widow member was not a the class covered section. Neither she within the class with- included in Section 324, Revised Statutes 1919. She child had no partition John M. Betts. The suit could affect appellant party since he was not a to it. judgment against
IV. The in the case Walker against Gehrig Groff and that in the case are affirmed. Thompson That in the case of is reversed, and the cause proceedings remanded for further not inconsistent with opinion. All concur. Appellant OTTIE et al.; THOMAS, INLOW JAMES A. , al.; B. CORA HERREN et A. JAMES NEWMAN Appellants. et al., One,
Division December 1924. By Expectancy: 1. Quitclaim CONVEYANCE: Deed: Estate such, Estoppel. quitclaim convey only operate in- A deed can grantor, and terest as in the the time of its execution vested title; inoperate pass after-acquired if in ad- as such to grantors dition to that “the the usual recitals it further recited convey right, now have herein all their title and interest in the above and' described land Vol. TERM,
Inlow v. Herren. they may acquire mother, who as heir” of their future living possession, then their clear inten- was the owner and in they might expectancy tion was to there- whatever estate in *2 apparent; expectancy after inherit from an in as and her her heirs being subject being juris, parties land the sui of the contracts and adequate the or fraud consideration no unfairness and of element appearing, agreement grantors, operates estoppel the the as an death, themselves, after the be mother’s but will in to assert title equity. enforced in -; Estoppel: By 2. -: -: Statutes. Married Woman: convey- (Sec. 1889) provided 2396, The old the statute R. S. for joint and ance of the husband wife’s of real estate the deed express implied, covenant, and in such wife¡ declared that or “no may deed, wife, heirs, except as be shall bind the so far the or necessary right, effectually convey her and heirs all to from her her therein,” expressed conveyed stat- title and and said interest to be 1905, p. unchanged (Laws ute remained until the Act of 1905 “any 1919, 2175), whereby provided R. covenant S. sec. that it was belonging expressed implied conveying property any to or in deed wife, as extent the the same shall bind the wife and her heirs to joint quitclaim Held, if such was a wife sole.” that the femme after of the husband ahd wife executed in 1897 and therefore which contained enactment Married Act of Woman’s convey right, grantors and “the all their recital that herein any and land now in the above have described acquire they may right, heir” in future title and interest estop her, equity, mother,' living, operated after to of her then any setting death, up land. She her mother’s from claim empowered statutes, said time she executed though expectancy her she were to contract reference to convey expectancy having sole, to her and undertaken femme having conveyance apparent, and land as heir in her mother’s consideration, good faith, adequate an free been made subject fraud, influence, she unfairness or other element undue principles estoppel other extent same person be. would Purpose. The of Parties: -: All Clauses: Situation Intention: 3. grantor from a consideration be ascertained intention of given part whole, its is to each related deed as a and to of his be con- weight, whole should as a and due and relative and the with the situation sidered in connection accomplished purposes sought its execution. to be Statute Heirs: Word Use -: Estate Grantor: Entire 4. 2) pro- 1855, p. (R. sec. 1858 S: force statute SUPREME COURT OP MISSOURI, Inlow v. Herren. “every conveyance pass vided that all of of real shall therein, pass estate of unless, less the intent clearly appear, necessarily implied estate* shall terms or grant,” “heirs” and under word use of the statute the necessary in a deed made was not to create simple. estate in fee Bodily During 5. -: To Son and Heirs Natural Lives: Reservation Residuary Fee: Passed in Will. Clause In 1858 owner wife, land his Amos consideration and Jemina “in the love and affection we son Thomas and have for our Silas provision against contingencies make future maintenanc for the e support bodily heirs,” granted of the said Silas Thomas conveyed during “unto their him and his heirs aforesaid eighty together natural lives” same acres:.“to have and to hold the singular rents, appurtenances, privileges, all issues profits thereof, title, estate, all and also possession prem and claim we have and to the above described ises, and we will said warrant and defend the title to described *3 persons tract land of from the claims and whomso demands of all quiet peaceable possession him, ever in the- said Silas and of the Thomas, and his heirs said as aforesaid A clause in forever.” will, year later, my owner’s executed a “To Silas Thomas read: son already conveyed him, give in addition to the lands I be to and queath” residuary forty another tract of acres. The clause read: my personal “The residue of estate both real and I desire to be sold public sale, proceeds among the of which-I desire to be divided * my children,” naming among . seven, had one or them Silas. He and more sons children of mentioned a deceased child who were not residuary clause, provisions. in this for them he made other deceased, children, Silas now his and two of James and Cora, having acquired the their of his other children and interests bodily heirs, eighty contend that Silas took a life in estate the bodily acres his heirs the fee in remainder. descendants find of the six other children of Amos that the Amos contend a life in estate and his created Silas also a 'life estate each of bodily heirs, up and that the fee in in Amos remainder remained residuary passed to his the time of his death and the clause Held, first, will his said inten to seven children their heirs. the grantor tion of the is to a the be ascertained from consideration of whole, given part due and deed as a and to each is to be its related weight, considered relative and the deed as a whole should be purposes connection with the the situation the and accomplished through execution; sought second, the to its made, purpose affection, consideration for the of love and providing “against contingencies and maintenance future the ' OCTOBER TERM, 1924.
Inlow v. Herren. support bodily heirs;” third, the Silas Thomas his while and granting conveyed his clause recites land is “and that the to Silas bodily during their first heirs natural lives” and habendum at ordinary words, says gran- uses the habendum said also that rents, title, posses- tees have named are to “all the premises,” sion and claims we have in and the above described which words must be in their to the considered relation extent purposes they grant, grant of the are inconsistent only grantor; aof and a fee in the life estate reservation fourth, grantor the covenant that he will warrant defend persons “from the demands all whomsoever claims and quiet peaceable him, possession in the the said Silas a and his inconsistent with heirs as aforesaid forever” likewise himself; (ft. fifth, fee in of the statute then force reservation conveyance 2) 1855, p. 355, “every S. see. real declared grantor therein, pass all of unless the estate shall the estate necessarily expressly appear, pass less intent a estate shall or be ap- implied expressly grant,” and in the terms of the it does pass pear a deed that intent of Amos was to less estate from the grantor’s simple; sixth, he recital will than a fee conveyed opposed land to Silas is construction had therefore residuary legatees named he intended devise conveyed previously to Silas or in- he had clause lands residuary legatees therein; and, seventh, said took no terest purpose eighty acres, but the said .which, heirs, bodily eighty-acres his he to Silas and fee in remainder. took took life estate Heirs; conveyance Bodily Estate Tail. A -: to a To Child bodily tail, an estate heirs statute creates son and his 1855) 5, p. (Sec. 2267, R. into S. is converted R. S. Sec. bodily son and at his death the fee vests life living. then *4 heirs 299; 1, pars. 32/198, 2, Deeds, Deeds, 18 C. J. Headnotes: Citations Wife, 640, 655; 3, pars. 310, par? 4 Husband and 30 C. J. J. 18 C. (1926 Anno), 229, 205, 282; 6, pars. 203, Deeds, 5, 315 J. 18 C. par. Estates, 43. J. 21 C. Edgar B. Appeal Circuit Court.—Hon. Pike Wool- from Judge. folTc, part). part) (in (in reversed
Affirmed 4-6 COURT OF .SUPREME v. ap- Howell Ann
Frank Jennie Newman et al., respondent. pellants, Fannie I.
(1)
quitclaim deed
Fannie I. Thomas to
pass
only
A Thomas could
such interest or title
ninety-acre
Bog’y
owned
tract
she
at that
time.
Ridgeway Holliday,
380;
v.
Mo.
59 Mo.
v.
13
Jacob,
455;
Rogers,
tate lives nothing in is the deed to an therein, there indicate being more than a life estate. This true intent eighty-acre the fee in remainder to the tract remained in Amos Thomas to the time death and devised of his residuary to the nineteen de- his will clause claiming. or are those under whom fendants, Haley & and Hostetter é Barrow Barrow James Thomas. A. carry
(1) quitclaim is sufficient to deed inherited Fannie I. interest Thomas from one-fourth grantee, Helen to the Thomas, Sarah James her mother, way (a) The are all one authorities on the A. proposition construing determining deeds arriving at intention effect of same weight given is to the which are more clauses regular printed matter than in, written deed and its usual stock form of the constitutes clauses, (b) H. intestate on Oc- Sarah died Thomas acquire Thomas fact and Fannie I. did tober. undivided heirs an one-fourth her one of as juris ninety-acre tract; she sui the time the said (c) making Fannie Thomas received I. of a conveyance of her fu- for this consideration valuable estopped to claim the in- acquired interest. She ture paid previously for. been sold had she terest (2) against estoppel pleads her. Grant- A. conveys quitclaim only the ordinary ing this grantors ownéd, deed is still, then interest conveys singles quitclaim out deed. It than more in accord with the acquired It is interest. the future present- authority land, interests make all trend prevail unless rule should prospective, vendible; this prevent public policy to principle of some it encounters taking prevent would none which and there it, effect of controversy parties intended SUPREME COURT OF *6 v. Xnlow Herren. Contingent are, it should. remainders alienable. Realty 208 Mo. Co., 501; Summet G-odman v. v. Simmons, Koppelmann, v. Bopst 122; 113 Reinders 68 Mo. Mo. 482; (3) Williams, 287 Mo. Under the v. doctrine estoppel pleaded in case this A. the Thomas, expressly grantor, Thomas, I. who Fannie sold and con- veyed ninety-acre future interest her tract as the prospective heir mother, of her then who owned the said estopped claiming against as is tract, sam^ Estate, deed. 3 Devlin on Real her solemn 1281a; sec. Spears Spaw, Mo. Johnson, Johnson v. 25 L. S.) (4) A, (N. note. Under the modern R. doctrine, might govern- add, and commoix-sensedoctrine, we interpretation ing par- deeds, the intention of the controlling instrument is the to the factor. ties It grantor, clearly Amos that the Thomas, manifest in bad convey a intended life mind alid his Silas son, bodily in the remainder and fee to his son’s Thomas, The will of Amos heirs. executed year little more than after he executed internal and intrinsic furnishes evidence that he such absurd did not intend construction placed makes said deed. ITe reference on towill conveyed already he his son, had lands Silas. If appellants position of counsel for the nineteen on then Amos Thomas correct, this issue owned re- eighty-acre fee to the after mainder in tract the life es- bodily tate of life estate Silas heirs should significantly disposi- will silent end, and the always remainder interest; tion such and there is intestacy. legal against partial presumption plaintiffs C. The LINDSAY, under cause, petition, the first couixtof their asked for' determination County, setting certain of title to lands Pike forth claimed, by therein owned interests the several parties; degree second asked for a count, partition respective in.accordance as- interests body serted. The entire of land consisted of two hundred TERM, 1924. Inlow v. Herren. alleged
forty interests but the had acres, reference respective of the claims three several seventy ninety one of acres, acres, one and one tracts, Upon eighty it trial acres. was found, and it is plain- A. Thomas, that James one of the here, conceded seventy-acre of the tract, sole tiffs, owner any issue as to was eliminated. it, The court tract-, partition ninety- for the its decree entered sale eighty-acre tract, for distribu- acre tract, among parties, proceeds accordance tion respective rights *7 a and sale found; of these with their approved, having been order of two made tracts proceeds apportionment was entered. The court, taking appeals, upon proceeds ordered the net appeals. rights pending- the The in- be held sale to proceeds. rights in the net are volved here upon cross-appeals: First, here cause The is plaintiffs, appeal Thomas, one who of James A. s finding assign that he was not the owner in the error ninety-acre interest one-fourth of an undivided by a from his sister Fan him under claimed tract, nie his rival and the successful who was Thomas, I. ap Second, interest. said one-fourth claimant constituting peal others, nine Newman and Ann of Jennie assign error in that defendants, who teen of eighty-acre adjudged interest have no were eighty-acre tract was found to be tract, by plaintiff, Cora Thomas, A. James owned said respondents are of whom defendant, both Herren, B. eighty-acre tract. upon title to said issue here related to first considered' I. The issue Thomas and Fannie I. Thomas A. interests of James ninety-acre this" issue facts tract. simple. that as admitted It was arises, are abiety-a01'6 common tract the source DeedClaim who was Thomas, Helen title was Sarah Cora I. Thomas Thomas, Fannie A. James mother of SUPREME COURT OF y. Inlow Herren. plaintiff grandmother Herren, and of' Ottie eight Lee plaintiffs, other who are children of daughter Helen Ronten, Sarah deceased of said Thomas, Sarah deceased. that said It was admitted ninety- simple acquired Helen Thomas fee title to the May acre she tract a deed made and that ninety-acre continued death, tract her own until in October, 1917, and she heirs died intestate. Her at law, therefore, her said son, are A. James daughters, Herren, her Fannie Thomas and B. I. Cora grandchildren, others, her children Ottie Inlow and of Lee deceased. A. Routen, The issue between James ninety-acre Thomas and Fannie I. Thomas as depends upon tract arose, the effect of a deed made Aughst Fannie I. to James Thomas A. Thomas on whereby 6, 1897, Fannie I. Thomas undertook to might A. James Thomas interest she thereafter acquire in the land heir of her mother, Sarah Helen Thomas. claimed.that virtue A.. this deed Fannie I. Thomas had no interest ninety-acre acquired tract, but that he had one- fourth which she, otherwise, have in- would herited from her mother. This deed as follows: *8 day August indenture made
“This on the sixth of eight ninety-seven A. D. one thousand hundred and . and between Fannie Thomas I. and Samuel Thomas S County her husband of the of Macon of and State parties part, Missouri, first and James A. Thomas County of the of Audrain in the State Missouri, party part: of the second parties part,
“Witnesseth, that the said of the first in consideration sum of one hundred dollars, paid by party them part, the said of the second the re- ceipt hereby acknowledged of which is do these presents, Remise, Quitclaim Release and forever unto party part, the said following second de- parcels lying, scribed being lots, or land, tracts and County situate in the Pike' and State of Missouri'to- wit: TERM, 1924. t. hundred- quarter containing one
“The southwest sixty quarter northwest half of the also the west acres Township 52, eighty containing acres all Section 15, Range 4 West. convey grantors all their herein
“The they described in the and interest that have above now may any right, that and title and interest land II, and acquire Thomas future as Sarah heirs Cora Thomas. B. rights, with all same,
“To have and to hold the appurtenances privileges be- thereto immunities, and part, party longing unto the said second assigns the said neither forever; so that heirs and parties any part, other nor heirs, nor their of the first behalf, person persons or them in their name or or right any or or will claim demand shall or hereafter part any premises, thereof, the aforesaid title to they presents, be every these them shall forever barred. excluded and first the said
“In witness whereof year day part their hands hereunto have set first above written. Thomas,”
“Fannie I. “S. S. Thomas.” part ninety-acre in issue is a tract now forty This deed described. acres hundred two August acknowledged by grantors on 6, 1897, August court trial on 3897. The filed for record insufficient to this deed held interest Thomas thereafter inherited which Fannie I. mothqr upon October, of the latter in her death pleadings made under The issue was 3.937. ownership pleaded one- of a A. Thomas follows: James ninety-acre tract. Fannie Thomas I. interest in the half pleaded A. owned this, denied she owned one-fourth one-fourth *9 replied, James to which A. Thomas therein, interest plead- malting up setting deed, of aforesaid 52 SUPREME COURT OF Inlow v. acceptance ing valu- and of of a thereof, virtue therefor, able consideration estopped Fannie Thomas I. claiming any men- in the tract from I. Fannie motion tioned. The court overruled the of portion reply Thomas, to strike out that of the of up estoppel, ground A. an Thomas set of departure being portion motion that such petition, and also that it did not state sufficient facts no to constitute defense to her answer. There is allegation payment denial of the the considera- allegation proof tion for deed. There is no procuring delivery fraud in execution and presented squarely solely deed. The issue is the effect of the terms the deed itself. quitclaim convey operate a mere
As
deed it could
only
already
such interest
maker,
as was
vested
inoperative
pass
after-acquired
and was
title.
[Bogy v.
13
Shoab,
365;
Mo.
Heirs,
Gibson v. Chouteau's
Ridgeway Holliday,
536;
Mo.
v.
Butcher
Mo.
Rogers,
Sarah I. Thomas as heir her reasonably m°ther, but leads conclu to the Expectancy! sion that the transfer of her uppermost thing parties. in the minds this, In every its.operation, as in right, particular passing any largely a matter of intention. In this deed grantor, pass intention grantee, whatever right might in this land there fall thereafter to th'e clearly expressed. as heir of her mother, is *10 53 TERM, 1924.
Inlow v. Herren. subject of much discussion of the been There has by expectancies, the several the courts transfer by English country, There courts. in states variety expressed, in the views much of is way other, compelling- one or the held be reasons subject harmony. been The has not entire is and there by and'learning be interesting reasoning made opinions judges, writers texts of and the found, upon any general here these but review law; lengthy necessary, profitable. more than is would may review the cases be found An elaborate appended page in the note at 597, 17 A. L. R. p. Ky.
opinion 443. The Smith, v. 588, Hunt 191 Taylor accepted generally Swaf- is doctrine stated v. where Tenn. it was said: “Both 303, 122 ford, English equity, American where it courts expectant fairly an that the contract of has been found upon a. valuable en- consideration, it will be made grantor privies, against whenever and his forced, as by possession. property covered it comes This into ground courts, these however, is done, present grant is one rather that upon J., stated 11 v. Chew Barnett, Gibson, Serg. (Pa.) to-wit: & R. conveyance grantor before “That has ac- operates agreement quired an title, chancery may enforced between the purchasers against notice.” estoppel applied the doctrine of been
And has involving attempted the sale and cases courts, trans- expectancy. In Johnson Johnson, fer of an 170 Mo. question containing at issue under a warranty. grantor In that case the covenants conveying undivided interest, which, three-sevenths was the one-seventh interest recited, it was inherited acquired by him and two-sevenths from two other him, time had heirs. lie no in- inherited holding that the recital terest. as what the SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI,
Inlow v. Herren. grant had inherited did not restrict to less than and that the warranty three-sevenths, covenant of after-acquired by estoppel. carried the court .This c.1. Mo. 52: said, argument against
“A further the contention of de fendant; it asserted that heir cannot, before the *11 expectancy; of his ancestor, death and that ought against not to the law enforce on him his will what it let him do would not if he but desired; we cannot yield argument. The cases which a sale of expectancy living an lands of a ancestor has been en through estoppel even at forced, law, of doctrine springing from the covenants in a deed, are numerous. [Steele v. 85 Tenn. Bohon 430; Frierson, Bohon, v. 78 Ky. v. Pick. 408; Skinker, 52; Somes 3 Robertson v. Wil 48; N. H. House son, 38 v. N. McCormick, 57 Y. 310; Habig Dodge, approved v. 127 Ind. followed Dodge, v. Ind. 600; Jerauld 127 v. Fairbanks William Eycleshimer, Me. Stover v. 46 96; Barb. son, v 84; 7 Rosenthal Mayhugh, Fogg, 155; . 33 St. Ohio Read v. 60 ” 479.] Me. estoppel at bar the doctrine In case must special provision spring, incorporated if at from the all, agreement, showing an into the deed and a clear inten- expectancy, tion transfer aided if it be, provision any of non-claim thereafter, wholly precedents. the land. case is not without Clendening Wyatt, In v. Kan. 523, which was a suit very petition ques- and for title, land, determine tion at issue here raised and determined. The court was page 525 : said, (cid:127) general assignment “It is the rule that an at law subject-matter will not be sustained has an unless potential assignment or actual existence when is expec- appears that an made, it be well settled tancy may an heir an ancestor’s become the subject assigned equity. may contract, uphold agreement equity such an Courts will apparent fairly heir and for an ade- made is where it 55' TERM, v. unjust quate advantage consideration. If no is taken or necessities of the indiscretion and. if heir, agreement not is and is not obtained unconscionable, may oppression, equity it fraud or enforced in [Steele after the death the ancestor. Frierson, Story, Eq. Eq. Tenn. Jur. Pom. Jur. 1040; sec. secs. Ency. Eng. 1 Am. & cases 1287, 1288; Law, 830, appear present In the it not cited.] case, does that there any unfairness or the transaction. There fraud suggestion inadequate, consideration uo that the nor any advantage unjust was taken of John Clenden- ing. charged it shown that there was Indeed, oppression, misrepresentation, in- nor unfairness, Clendening, who executed sufficient consideration. John maturity, evidently years writing, had reached joined him in he married whose wife man, execution of the contract. quit- contract is form a
“It that this is insisted existing only present inter- claim under which *12 Clendening in mother’s estate would est of John his pass. grantee quit- ordinarily, in It is true that, grantor nothing except gets in what fact claim deed his [John- deed. at time of the execution owned And if contract 179.] 37 Kan. son v. Williams, question quitclaim as a was to be treated purport existing* convey an than to not to do more did how- It is manifest, not it could sustained. Clendening language bar- that was from used ever, possess gaining did he a future interest which about acquire expected at the death to at the which he time, and part re- it is the contract latter his mother. In the Clendening* his Kate, wife, 'the said John cited do above) hereby (in release, remise consideration portion that quitclaim he his,undivided forever to to the said may estate his mother’s be entitled to of in- assigns.’ had no Wyatt, August ITe his heirs and was made. contract the time the terest the land at the face of the from mother then alive, His SUPREME COURT OF y. distinctly appears contracting contract it he away the and future undivided interest which he ex pected acquire from his mother’s at time of estate specific description her death. There is a of the land controversy showing prop in the that the contract, sought erty now to he recovered was within the contem plation when the contract was made. Such upon ample honestly contract based consideration, fairly capable may made, one who is contract, equity.” enforced provision quitclaim
A similar contained involved, deed Ill. Thornton v. Louch, 204, after-acquired convey held to title. In case the expectancy spoken appears to have been that inter grantor est which the took as of the survivors one making question, his after sister, who, of the deed died without before the death the life ten issue, being grantor, contingency ant, the mother of the provided grantor’s one the will of the father. page The court said, principal 210: presented question “The for decision is August provision quitclaim
the effect of the Joseph R. Louch William and wife recite,: grantors T. Louch, wherein the ‘It is the inten grantee tion this instrument all may have in title and has or heirship above described real virtue posses late his Louch, deceased, Thomas under will, during sion of which of Eliza lifetime deferred widow of Louch, Louch, deceased.’ R. execution of “William at the time Louch, quitclaim had a him and base fee wife, *13 question an in undivided in land one-fourth interest subject conveyance by which but which deed, to was subject he to be should die and defeated determined without, mother. He also issue before his death question expectant had an if he in in the land interest or should either survive his and if brother mother his 57 TEEM, OCTOBEE v. the death die without issue sisters should before his share would then the life tenant. He mother, child’s This latter such deceased share.. conveyance ordinary subject quitclaim deed,
not conveys present nothing in more than for such deed Judy, grantor. 340.] Ill. [DuBois v. terest con will may, which contain recitals however, Such after-acquired after-acquired vey an title, an and where way operates conveyed by of es deed it title toppel. such Kearney, Mc 297; 11 How. [Van Rensselaer v. Bailey, 21 C. J. 1057; N. E. Adams v. 169 Ind. (2 Eng. Ency. Ed.) 410.] 11 Am. & Law conveyed Joseph all Louch T. “William E. Louch may grantor have title and interest the has heirship real estate virtue the above described will.’ or under his deceased, the late Thomas Louch; language on clearly an intention itself indicates part grantor that he then all interest of the interest his property to that addition had An ex father. expectancy of his as heir and devisee intended amination of the evidence shows William Joseph buy all the interest of sell and intended present expectancy, of his in the estate William, father.” Bailey, under
In the deed 169 Ind. McAdams warranty, containing consideration one covenants special con- containing recitals also certain "might veyance thereafter therein of interests gen- two That inherited. court discussion after expectan- assignment eral classes of deeds being, things remedies, and the cies or of interest 1. c. 523: said, quit ordinary
“Although,
an
indicated,
above
asserting
an
estop
claim deed
will not
after-acquired
yet
recital
such
a distinct
theory
proceeds
showing
on the
that the
may
conveyed,
thereby
particular
that a
interest was
warranty.
estoppel
[Van
as a
be as effectual to
create
*14
SUPREME COURT OF
Inlow v. Herren.
Kearney,
Prop
Rensselaer v.
In warranty, this deed there no covenant of convey there expectancy, clear intention to estate in the lands described thereafter to be inherited, agreement
with the usual or covenant of non- any right claimer thereafter of or title to the Woman! premises. In the Johnson case above men (170 grantor 34), Mo. tioned married equestion grantor th of coverture of the woman, not arise the cases that have been men did tioned. v. Wolfe,
In Brawford 103 Mo. a case relied respondent, by counsel was married and the deed was one with woman, covenants of war- ranty. by deed, was held that this It executed her pass grantee did husband, not sufficeto her second acquired by subsequent afterward her, filing by absolutely, her her to take,' election one-half her former husband, of the estate of deceased. At that conveyances governing statute of real estate time, joint deed of wife herself and her hus- provision: “but no band, contained ex- covenant, implied press in such shall wife, or bind or except necessary, may effectually, so far heirs, from her and her all heirs her title and conveyed expressed, to be therein.” It was acquired through that title held widow her elec- grantee tion did not inure to the by benefit “either equitable principles estoppel, virtue TERM, y. ’’ *15 operation It of the held that statute. virtue effect, its is, of “her deed whatever statute, its existing right, simply quitclaim title a of all her form, exe- The deed involved that case was and interest.” passage of Act of cuted before the the Married Woman’s conveyances governing' of the wife’s' statute unchanged Act of 1905 real remained until (Laws whereby 2175), it sec. 1919, 1905, 94; R. S. p. expressed implied “any provided covenant conveying property belonging shall to the wife, deed if same extent such and her heirs bind the wife it to be issue, sole.” The deed wife was femme passage the Mar after the of was executed observed, but the amendment before 1889, Act-of ried Woman’s conveyances. concerning v. Mus In Hendricks grove, court had under consideration 300, 183 Mo. this (exe question of a woman whether a deed married after-acquired property. 1905) passed Aft before cuted question this discussing in the defects certain er pagó “In to this the rule addition at 309: court said after-acquired property that the doctrine State (at any apply rate ato married woman’s does prior to 1889 when Married Woman’s made if it was regard form to the passed), that without but Act was at the only interest she had whatever date the deed [Citing passes.” Brawford Wolfe and other v. the deed question Conrey 576, 248 Mo. Pratt, In v. cases.] after-acquired issue, of inurement grantor being woman. The deed was made married amendment of 1905, but the enactment before passage Act, Woman’s the Married after conveyances the Married Woman’s statute on old consideration. After considera under were Act of 1889 holdings in v. Mus Hendricks these, tion of page grove, said, Wolfe, court Brawford powers may of a married be the woman 586: “Whatever not such were create 1889, Act of under the SUPREME COURT OF „v. liability against contrary provi express ber (R. 901) sions of the statute S. sec. in existence at tbe time óf the Married Act. We are not Woman’s impressed argument respondent, with the counsel giving many rights that the act married women away sole was intended to take from her the femme protection conveyances as to of her covenants 901) (R. land afforded the former statute S. sec. prior repeal to its in 1905.” upon
The case here not involve nor rest does warranty, or effect of existence a covenants of specific undertaking* convey expectancy the estate in of Fannie I. Thomas, inheritable her mother, *16 and to described lands. At the time instrument was right executed, she had to a 1897, contract as respect any sole in or therein, land interest femme by passage then owned which came to her after the her, “by bequest gift, of the Act or inheritance.” [Secs. 1919.] R. R. 6864, 6869, S. Sec. S. 7328, holding Exchange
Under the
in Farmers
Bank
Hageluken,
subsequent holdings re-
Inlow v. Herren. upon good will faith, consideration, valuable equity. case In this valid and enforceable upon solely parties issue concerned have submitted this the basis and that there was terms any record not valuable There is consideration. any testimony -showing or influence, fraud undue vitiating other of the circumstances influence, or although parties under which the made, deed was upon living. record thereto were We conclude that holding Thomas the court erred in that Fannie I. made, estopped.to one-fourth interest claim the ninety-acre her tract, the terms of acceptance of a therefor. valuable consideration 80-acre
II. The claimant title of depends given tract, the consideration made in and wife to their Thomas son Amos bodily heirs.
Silas Thomas and eighty-acre During Grant court found that trial _ _ . . Life: Reservation . Thomas James tract owned A. of Fee. children are B. who Herren, and Cora and set forth the nature Thomas, deceased, of Silas defendants, nineteen their and found interests, claiming appellants undivided on that issue, here It in this had no therein. tract, interests agreed had Herren Cora A. *17 acquired other accrued to whatever interests had by Thomas. made Amos Thomas heirs of The deed Silas follows: Day gift November “This deed of made the 22nd of eight, year eight fifty thousand and one hundred and That we Amos Thomas his Witnesseth: Jemima County wife of Pike the State of Missouri, of our love and affection have for consideration of the we county also son Thomas the same and and state Silas of ag,ainst contingencies provision a desire to make future support said Silas for the maintenance and presents give, bodily Thomas these heirs, and his do SUPREME COURT OF y. grant, bargain, him heirs sell and and his unto following during as aforesaid their natural lives being parcel lying described and tract land situate, County in the aforesaid, Pike and State to-wit: quarter “The Section east half of the southwest Township Fifty-three Range West, Fifteen Four, subject Palmyra, district lands sale containing eighty Missouri, be same more or acres less. together
“To have and to hold the singular with same all privileges, appurtenances, rents, and issues profits and thereof also and all the estate title, possession we have in and and claim premises above described us to worth two valued thousand dollars and will we warrant defend the and title to said described tract of land from and the claims persons quiet demands all whomsoever in the and peaceable possession him, the said Silas and Thomas, his heirs as aforesaid forever. In Witness whereof we day year have hereunto set our hands seals the first above written.”
The contention of A. Thomas B. and Cora Herren was and is that this deed Silas took Thomas bodily life remainder estate, in fee to his heirs. appellants contention of the nineteen deed Amos Thomas created a life in Silas Thomas bodily also life estate each one of his heirs, that the remainder in was Amos Thomas to time passed by residuary death, will. clause of his
The will of Amos December executed on residuary, “The, 1859. The clause is as follows: my personal residue of estate both real I desire public proper be sold at sale at a and suitable time after my proceeds equally decease, of which I desire my among divided children as follows: Bradon, Ann Margaret Thomas, Silas Grafford, Louis Thomas, James Nancy Harries and William Thomas.” The appellants nineteen on this issue are descendants *18 OCTOBER, 63 1924. TERM, v. residuary legatees than Silas other Thomas, of Amos to admitted Thomas. will of Amos Thomas was The prohate 'January executed 1860. The will thus on made year deed the date of little more than a by after to him reference contains a Silas conveyance. follows: The will is as clause my lands to the in addition
“To Thomas give son Silas bequeath already conveyed follow- I him, and county ing situated described tract land de- Then follows Pike and State of Missouri to-wit:” scription forty acres of land. question the effect be is determined ascer
foregoing
be
is to
deed. The intent of the maker
whole,
as a
tained
from consideration
given
up
parts,
made
related
to each of
Mo.
Wiltse,
weight.
v.
[Garrett
its
and
due
relative
v.
Ryland,
; Howell
440
1. c.
Eckle
whole
in connection with
should be considered
purpose sought to
accom
tion
and the
’’ [Brookings
plished
Scudder,
through
execution.
its
Thomas
Inlow v. Herren. ’’ ises. These last words must be their in. considered, purpose They grant. relation to the extent and are of the grantor with the idea the con- inconsistent veying only, holding an estate life for or lives and was gift the remainder in himself. He and values the provision making he is as “worth two thousand dollars.” He that he covenants will warrant and defend the title persons free from the claims and demands of all whom- quiet peaceable possession soever in the of Silas Upon Thomas and heirs as aforesaid forever. whole instrument, the situation far shown as as impressed record, the grantor, arewe with the belief that the provision, gift Amos Thomas, intended this bodily be for benefit of Silas Thomas, and his distinguished any heirs, as other of the heirs grantor, and that he undertook to make and did any make no reservation to himself or estate in remain- any der benefit of other of his heirs or devisees. granting The clause cannot be taken to obliterate wholly provision following, which as we take shows it emphasis purpose clearness grantor parting with all his interest and this land. warranty, peaceable The quiet that it warrants possession in “Silas Thomas and his as aforesaid heirs foregoing forever,” cannot, for the reason held apply only to a life estate and to the immediate first or bodily applies heirs Silas Thomas. It favor of bodily certainly, applies against heirs of Silas, it but, persons of all claims whomsoever extent and to the of “all possession estate, title, grantor premises. claim,” held in and to the At the time this deed was executed was in also force there what is now Section Revised (R. Statutes 1919 S. p. 2). 1855, Under provided sec. that section it was that the use necessary term “heirs” was not create provided simple, or an estate in fee and it “every conveyance real estate shall pass all of the estate of the unless therein, TERM,
Inlow v. Herren. appear, expressly pass shall intent to a less estate implied grant.” necessarily in the terms convey- theretofore will to land recital residuary under which clause ed to with the Silas, taken opposed conten- claim, nineteen defendants residuary by the intended, tion that Amos he therein land or clause, to devise already bodily We conveyed heirs. had and his Silas, err opinion court did are therefore *20 no holding* had in nineteen defendants that the joint of by eig’hty-acre effect the in the virtue tract, residuary the will. the deed clause in and the holding took nineteen III. the defendants In that Amos nothing* eighty-acre tract the deed in the residuary court of his will clause Thomas and Cora further that A. Thomas and held Estate ÉjfilasThomas, the children two of p[erreri) having tract, in that owned the fee deceased, heirs acquired children of the other the interests reaching* court that conclusion the Thomas. In Silas children estate, took a life and his held that Silas Thomas living eighty- in the his death took the fee at the time of Amos 'from acre tract. to be observed It is grant not to that the is Thomas to Silas “bodily their aforesaid,” heirs” or the as "and “heirs assigns. “assigns” occur The does heirs word Fanning v. convey Doan, did in Mo. first, the land, The an intention to deed manifests bodily during his heirs to Silas his natural then to life, succession. lives, forever, for their natural endless have the conclusion We reached estate tail.
Amos Thomas undertook given: purpose gather the definition as we it was within which, inheritance, “Estates tail, are estates of then, generally, go heirs descending* .instead of to heirs his body, issue, of the donee’s his which means lawful through grandchildren children, and to his them SUPREME COURT OF Ry. v. Allen. ex Mo. Pac. Co.
State
rel.
regular
posterity
long
endures
Ms
direct line, so
upon
.extinction
descent, and,
order
and course
[Washburn on
determines.”
the estate
such issue,
p.
Property (6 Ed.)
190.]
said
89,
As was
Real
sec.
are,
Fanning
328: “Such estates