*1 consisted of furnishings boulevard room in the Grand kept he there; that bed; necessarily keep his clothes did that he at his clothes at of business and street place some of his clothes right Grand to vote from the father’s; thought had a his he that he other residence, from no his voted address, claimed it as boulevard from Grand boule- living registering place, at and been weight greater years. While the ten past vard address for the satisfactory think as we evidence, which voting address might avenue tend to establish Belt be, instance, Cox’s influenced, for residence, still if address registering from the Grand boulevard living and continued conclusion, may. interfere. The Election Com- its reaching judgment with re- proof. missioners the burden of spect affirmed. residence is Cox’s comply Richter, with Appellant, Mr. has failed Richter. Otto therefore, is dismissed. governing appeals. appeal, His our rules concurs; C., Barrett, G., absent. hues, West foregoing opinion C., adopted Bohling, PER CURIAM.- -The judges opinion All the concur. of the court. Mary Ruby Davis, Ap Dale, Roberts, Hoffman Cora Wife, Randleman, His pellants v. Earl Randleman (2d) S. W. 38796. 180 Snowden. No. and Alfred Two, May Division Rehearing Denied, 5, 1944. June *2 Dan Z. Everett E. Teel for appellants. Gibson and Elliott <& respondents. Kelso for ejectment suit filed tliis
WESTHUES, C. Plaintiffs Vernon of land situated tract possession against defendants ownership asserted by their answer The defendants county, Missouri. to declare in them and title to decree the land asked the entered trial court property. interest plaintiffs had no declaring defendant defendants judgment prayed had no plaintiffs fee the owner Lottie Randleman was appealed. Plaintiffs _ interest therein. n by virtue ownership of the land claimed Plaintiffs and defendants Title Morrison, September of a deed one executed reads that deed. placed to be depends interpretation on the follows:
‘‘ Warranty General Deed. by and day 24th Indenture, made on the “This *3 County Vernon and Morrison, of Widower, of between James of. Jennie M. Morrison Missouri, part, first and party of the State of Missouri, the second party of County of of Vernon the State part, party part, first for the and
“Witnesseth, said of by the him ($1.00) consideration of sum of One to Dollars acknowl- hereby party part, receipt of the of which second said Convey And edged, presents Grant, Bargain Sell, And these do assigns, Confirm, party part, her heirs unto the said of the second and being and lots, parcels land, of lying tracts or described Missouri, County situate State of to-wit: in the of Vernon and (2) Quarter Two (9) “All Lot Nine of Section of the Northwest Thirty-one Except about Township Thirty-four (34) Range (31) deeded (2-%) Two and one third acres out of the west corner South McKay to J. F. Henry and Reed. (10) (9) lying all of east part
“Also that of Lot Nine Ten and Quarter Railway, of Section Missouri Pacific in the Northeast (3) Thirty-four Range (31), not (34) Thirty-one Three Township heretofore purposes. for School deeded party
“The rights privilege dispose Second to sell or have full and to anytime same at for her own needs. party is understood after that the death of the second property belonging Morrison, as her shall James to heirs of the second shall see fit. ‘‘ To aforesaid, singular Have premises And To Plold the with all and belong- rights, privileges, thereto appurtenances and immunities ing, anywise or in appertaining party of the second the said unto part, and assigns forever; unto her Morrison heirs the said James and hereby covenanting lawfully estate he is of an seized indefeasible in fee in premises right conveyed; good herein he has convey same, any en- premises clear are free and claims, or suffered him or those under whom he oumbrances done he Warrant and premises will Defend title of the said part assigns second her heirs unto the said of the unto forever, against the and demands all persons lawful claims whom- ’’ soever. February Morrison, on
The deed was recorded James January of the 1929. His deed, predeceased author died wife deed, M. him. Jennie named testate died By will, August 30, executed land in question devised the defendant Lottie Randleman. The reads as follows n . pertains will far in so to this hereby sister, my Roberts, “I will devise to Cora half east (9), of quarter (2) township of lot nine' northwest section two (34), rangu thirty thirty-one (31), County, four Vernon Missouri.
“Item three. hereby “I will and to Lottie devise Randleman the west one-half (9), quarter of lot nine (2), township northwest of Section two thirty-one thirty-four (34), range (31), County, Missouri, Vernon except (2%) about two and'one-third acres corner of the southwest thereof, my and all the residue personal remaining estate payment debts, my including my expenses. funeral bequest
“My reason for the my ap- made Lottie Randleman is preciation long me, of her service and continued kindness payment long desire to make some her for the and faithful service she has rendered me.” Roberts, of James Morrison plaintiffs: Cora daughter, Dale, Ruby Davis, Mary Hoffman and 1934., being daughter
grandchildren, children of a year died who *4 Morrison, M. Jennie Morrison, while related to James had lived home in of the the Morrisons since by childhood was treated them explains why as their child. That probably re- Cora Roberts was in by ferred to the will suggestion Jennie as sister. There awas may the that she half-sister, record have Mor- been Mrs. James having rison conveyed been married twice. James Morrison had bequeathed other property daughters. to his two The defendant Randleman had lived in the James Morrison household since about the year 1920. the Septem- She married defendant Earl" Randleman on ber 1928, and with her husband continued her to make home with the Morrisons. Morrison, above, January died the and from then on the Randlemans pur- cultivated the land on shares agreement suant .to an with Jennie Morrison. Lottie Randleman in her testimony grandfather referred to Morrison Morrison to Jennie Morrison as Aunt Jennie. We assume that because was long of her residence with them any relationship. because of After death of Jennie the to occupy continued that Randlemans portion of the land to paid devised Lottie. in- Mrs. Randleman an personal property received tax the real estate'and she
heritance oil filing suit, August through shortly Until will. before evidently assumed that Mrs. Randleman concerned parties asked Plaintiff Dale to in fee of land. was was the owner perfecting title of Mrs. quitclaim purpose sign a for deed investigation Dale to make an land. This caused Randleman in the plead to attempted followed. The defendants and this suit soon knowledge of theory plaintiffs' the deed estoppel on the that tha,t knowledge of Jennie Morrison and with question the will tax on the land permitted pay Mrs. Randleman to inheritance $126.19; the Randlemans plaintiffs permitted in the sum that the purposes; convey a of this land a school district school portion to to they, defendants, possession from that the taxes and were in filing year 24, 1932, suit. ten statute to the date of expired case, suit This at the time was filed. limitations had by governed the statute limita- pleaded, under the facts should be estoppel. equitable tions and not through Morrison the deed
What estate did Jennie receive power with question? received life estate Our answer is she maintenance, necessary disposal during her her lifetime-if designate in what manner the power with will additional among It estate was be divided of James Morrison. is evident, grantor Morrison to think, intended Jennie have necessary if property the full for her maintenance and benefit of disposed purpose. her for evident be is also grantor that after death of Jennie intended remaining go language heirs. property to his Note the the deed: of the second that all understood the death belonging the heirs shall of James fit.”
the second shall see enjoyed years. less Jennie Morrison the estate than four She lived age grantor past eighty. Had she sixty to be about years years have grantor, the same as the lived number dispose occasion her own comfort. land for grantee life 'Our conclusion that the deed estate in vested supported by reasoned the case of a number -of well cases. Note (2d) 939, a similar Gillespie, Blumer v. 338 Mo. 93 S. W. where question disposing In was this court. presented this court simple whether the immediate a fee title page S. (9) said at of 93 W. : “Appellant provision in the will the testator’s son contends *5 death’ my of estate after wife’s ‘shall inherit what remain wife, and, part on the of his clearly power disposition a of indicates remainder, over to the therefore, negatives life estate with the idea of a n son. . 985 agree contention. with this For reasons already “We cannot wife a life that the took' estate under the are convinced will. If superadded power disposition, a that would not convert Chapman Chapman, 98, a fee. estate into v. 336 77 the life Mo. 90; McKay, (2d) 87, Every (2d) Van v. 331 355, Mo. 53 S. W. S. W. is, therefore, necessary to determine whether she power disposition.” have did did not or the power disposition Morrison did have In this case Jennie but is, power, only conditional it it was a was to be exercised if her power own Such a necessary disposition needs. is incon- simple weight argument title and adds sistent with a fee grantee grantor have only intended a life estate. Nor is deed, the latter clause the death of the understood second all belonging her
property shall (Italics shall see ours), as the second inconsistent with fit.” only theory grantee received a life estate. That clause power disposal class, to a limited is, created to the heirs of James Morrison. Mrs. Randleman was not an heir of James legal Morrison and therefore Jennie' Morrison no authority the' devise her. reaching In the above con we have well clusion followed the established rule law that grantor expressed intention of in the instrument must control. Keller, (2d)
Keller 338 Mo. 92 v. S. W. (1). l. c. 159 We have not been unmindful the principle grant of law that a of an by fee subsequent absolute cannot be curtailed doubtful or repugnant provision. Triplett Triplett, In v. 332 13, l. Mo. S. W. c. (6, 7), this court stated rule thus: granted
“When an estate in fee by will, or deed such estate cannot be cut down a lesser by repugnant provision. estate- To so, subsequent do equally must be clause clear granting as the clause, so that all in the clauses deed can be harmonized. That ’’ cannot be done in this case. us,
In the ease before when all clauses together, are read is evident clear that the only a life estate. Respondents.in argument their suggest that the devise to vra,s Randleman in consideration performed of labor by her for the benefit point testatrix. The was not points mentioned under and authorities. by This contention was not sustained the evidence. The record reveals that the Randlemans rented the farm shares from Jennie Morrison. The terms were definite will be noted evidence of Earl Randleman: ‘‘Q. And arrangements what you which Jennie— you Lottie, stay were to there? A. I gave her two-fifths grain rent on corn, grain, one-third all of small pasture rent, and we had one half in with the chickens. *6 charged pz'oceeds, wife, got half never and she
me and her a cent.” against charge Jennie to be made any for no occasion There was receiving a share of They were Randlemans. prior Randleman Any performed labor Mrs. for their labor. crop therefor, awas not if she was death of James evident It also involved. against estate. That is now charge his no occasion for Jennie there was terms of rental that under needs disposal for her own advantage power of Morrison to take disclosed The evidence she under the apy property deed. Mrs. bequeathed she of her own which personal property had real estate was the devisé point The made that Randleman. without the testatrix is performed the benefit of of labor payment fail. must .merit land portion the title to the case cannot This affect to this suit is not The district sold to the school district. entered by any judgment that be therefore is bound case. who judgment for defendants
The trial court entered necessary to consider possession of the land. therefore was existing to'adjudge equities in favor or rental of the land value unable Upon meager we are presented record of the defendants. court adjudicate the circuit When case reaches question. rights of the can, upon hearing, adjudge the that court on remand permitted parties. present defendants be to plead The any equities may exist that are allowable in such cases. to enter judgment trial with directions reversed plaintiffs be the owners of the judgment decreeing them to accounting adjudicate between also to land CG., Barrett, Bohling parties-to It is this suit. so ordered. concur. C., is
PER foregoing opinion CURIAM: The 'by Westhues, opinion judges concur. adopted as the of the court. All the City Ap Corporation, Lee R. Hardwick Company, v. Kansas Gas pellant. 38608. 180 W. 670. S. No. Two, March
Division Overruled, Rehearing or Transfer to Banc Motion for June