4 Vt. 414 | Vt. | 1832
When this cause first came up to this Court, it stood against the said James Little, and his wife, Rosettct Liitl'e, jointly. After argument, upon the same statement of facts now-before us, we decided, dial she was not liable upon those covenants, made during her coverture ; but no decision was made upon the part of the case then remaining, and now presen-* ted for our decision. The plaintiff- moved to amend his declaration, by erasing the name of said Rosetta, and letting it stand' against said James alone, as it now is. This was granted, upon terms, I believe, which were complied with. In life present argument, the execution of this deed by said Rosetta, jointly with her husband, during her coverture, is treated as a nullity, so far as relates to her liability on these covenants ; or so far as relates to the liability of said James ta be sued alone, without taking notice of the said Rosetta, as being a cosigner with said James.
Therefore, the only question now presented is,- whether the lease from Waterman, under all the circumstances of the case, creates a defect of title in James, when he conveyed to the plaintiff ; or, whether it was then an incumbrance upon the land,so as to form $ breach of these covenants in the defendant’s deed to the plaintiff It appears in the case, that Waterman, having received from this defendant an absolute title to the land in question, gave a 1'ease of the same for eight hundred years to the said Rosetta, then lire wife of the said Jaiues, her executors, administrators and assigns^ they paying twelve and half cents yearly rent. Had the lease stopped here, it would have created, according to the authorities cited, a chattel interest in said Rosetta, which would have been under the control, and at the disposal, of her executors or administrators after her decease, or might have been disposed
There can be no doubt but that this arrangement with Waterman was intended as a family settlement of this farm. James deeds to Waterman, to enable him to convey to Rosetta, the wife of said James, and to certain heirs named. He conveys accordingly by the lease referred to. He then quits to said James all bis, Waterman’s, ri^ht to said premises. This operates to make said James landlord to receive the annual rent. He then was in possession, in right of his wile under the lease, and as landlord under his deed.
Now, in ascertaining what should be the true construction of this lease, we derive no benefit from the location of the various expressions ; because it follows no form known in law. All we can do is, to compare all its provisions together, and see how they, best stand together, and hence discover what were those intentions of the parties, to which the law will give sanction. In this mode of investigation, we are led to the conclusion, that the expression, “ the heirs of said James by said Rosetta, and the said Diantha Salford,” should be treated as a term of purchase, they all being then and still in existence. The lease will then operate to give Rosetta a life lease, and, upon her decease, the said Diantha Safford, if living, otherwise, her heirs, and those children of said James and Rosetta, jointly, who would be their legal, joint heirs, if said James were also dead. This was, therefore, an outstanding title, which James and Rosetta could not convey to the plaintiff. They could convey all her right, that is her life estate,