{ "id": 1529047, "name": "CarLee v. Ellsberry", "name_abbreviation": "CarLee v. Ellsberry", "decision_date": "1907-03-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "209", "last_page": "214", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 Ark. 209" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "73 Tex. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "60 Tex. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2170887 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tex/60/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 S. W. 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "60 Ind. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1500594 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/60/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Cal. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 4391583 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/cal/41/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Pac. 1049", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 N. W. 1006", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "165 Mo. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 2233122 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/165/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Mo. 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "146 Mo. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 S. W. 702", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "72 N. W. 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "104 Cal. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 8712208 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/cal/104/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 Penn. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Penn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "48 S. W. 635", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "44 S. W. 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "83 S. W. 436", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "19 S. W. 1097", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "170 S. W. 702", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "66 S. W. 1023", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 S. W. 904", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 S. W. 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "42 Pa. St. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "53 Ark. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1911621 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/53/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Mich. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 N. Y. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 Mich. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1366381 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/71/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 Mo. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 984745 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/142/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ky. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 4402694 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/87/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Ark. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "3 Ark. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728249 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/3/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Johns. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "552" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Johns. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns.", "case_ids": [ 2135846 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/johns/10/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Mass. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2002164 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/5/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ark. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1530677 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/81/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Me. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 634590 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/me/36/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Iowa, 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2340792 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/60/0442-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ark. 695", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728631 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/15/0695-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ark. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1497309 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/78/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Wis. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8703150 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/55/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Cal. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2336983 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/51/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Pick. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "case_ids": [ 2010277 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/20/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Vt. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 762029 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/vt/58/0642-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 N. J. Eq. 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Eq.", "case_ids": [ 802689 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-eq/14/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Gill, 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gill", "case_ids": [ 1703545 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/gill/3/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Me. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 623146 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/me/83/0562-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 656, "char_count": 10697, "ocr_confidence": 0.703, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.6419534002023845e-07, "percentile": 0.9270766365143296 }, "sha256": "acd16047c1618f056bc7076f1fc6497373bae3e06b69c56cc7067eef10624808", "simhash": "1:9951cad0c1a1d1e7", "word_count": 1937 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:32.340981+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CarLee v. Ellsberry." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Battue, J.\nThis case involves the construction of so much of a deed executed by John T. Hamblett and wife to Georgena Ellsberry as is in the following words:\n\u201cKnow all men by these presents, That we, J. T. Hamblett and Cordelia P. Hamblett, his wife, for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar to us in hand paid, and for the love and affection we have for our daughter, Georgena Ellsberry, we hereby convey, sell, give and bequeath to the said Georgena Ellsberry, and unto her heirs and assigns forever, the following lands lying and being situate in the county of Woodruff and State of Arkansas, towit: Lots numbered twelve (12), thirteen, (13) and fourteen (14) in block number fourteen (14) in the town of Augusta, to have and to hold the same unto the said Georgena Ellsberry and unto her heirs and assigns forever, with all the appurtenances thereto belonging. Provided, however, that should the said Georgena Ellsberry die without issue and before her husband, Wm. M. Ellsberry, then the property herein conveyed is to revert unto the said Wm. M. Ellsberry.\u201d\nThe granting clause of the deed conveys the lands described to the grantee in fee simple. The habendum defines the estate the grantee is to take to be the fee simple, with a proviso limiting the estate in certain contingencies to a life estate. The proviso or condition is repugnant to the granting clause. Which prevails ?\nIn Maker v. Lazell, 83 Me. 562, the court said: \u201cThere is one rule pertaining to the construction of deeds, as ancient, general and rigorous as any other. It is the rule that a grantor cannot destroy his own grant, however much he may modify it or load it with conditions, \u2014 the rule that, having once granted an estate in his deed, no subsequent clause, even in the same deed, can operate to nullify it. 11 Bac. Abr. 665; Shep. Touch. 79, 102. We do not find that this rule has ever been disregarded, or even seriously questioned, by courts. We find it often stated, approved, and sometimes made a rule of decision. In Duke of Marlborough v. Lord Godolphin, 2 Ves., Sr., 74, Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, \u2018in* whose judgments equity shone resplendent,\u2019 declared that the courts either of law or equity should not adopt such a construction of an instrument of devise as would defeat the interests given. In Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Jac. & Walk. 84, which was a case most elaborately argued and considered, it was said by the court that where a limitation in a deed is perfect and complete, it cannot be controlled by intention collected from other parts of the same deed.\u201d To support this rule of construction, the court cites and comments upon the following cases: Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill, 198; Ackerman v. Vreeland, 14 N. J. Eq. 23; Wilder v. Davenport, 58 Vt. 642; Cutler v. Tufts, 3 Pick. 272; Wilcoxson v. Sprague, 51 Cal. 640; Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Hewett, 55 Wis. 96.\nIn Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company v. Hewett, 55 Wis. 96, Mr. Justice Lyon, delivering the opinion of the court, said: \u201cWhich of .these two conflicting clauses in the deed of 1873 should prevail? This question must be determined by rules of law * * * governing the construction of deeds. One of these rules is that a deed is always construed most strongly against .the grantor. 4 Greenl. Cruise, Real Prop. p. 352, tit. 32, ch. 20, \u00a7 13. Another is that where there are two clauses in a deed, and the latter is contradictory to the former, the former shall stand. This is an application of the ancient rule or maxim that \u2018the first deed and the last will shall operate.\u2019 * * * If the subsequent clause in the deed of 1873 is regarded as a habendum, then we have this rule laid down by Cruise in the title above cited (ch. 21, \u00a7 \u00a7 75, 76) : \u2018Where- the habendum is repugnant and contrary to the premises, it is void, and the grantee will take the estate given in the premises. This is a consequence of the rule already stated, that deeds shall be con-, strued most strongly against the grantor; therefore he shall not be allowed to contradict or retract, by -any subsequent words, the gift or grant made in the premises. Thus, if lands are given in the premises of a deed to A. and his heirs, habendum to A. for life, the habendum is void, because it is utterly repugnant to and irreconcilable with the premises.\u2019 \u201d\nIn Whetstone v. Hunt, 78 Ark. 230, this court held that where the granting clause and the habendum of a deed conflict the habendum yields and the granting clause prevails. In the case before us the proviso or condition performs the office of a habendum, and there is no reason why it should have any greater force.\nIn Scull v. Vaugine, 15 Ark. 695. \u201cUpon division of property -among heirs and settlement of the widow\u2019s claims upon the estate, the heirs executed a deed * * * by which they conveyed to A. a slave * * * with -the proviso that, \u2018in the event of his death before he came to the age of twenty-one years, or has heirs of his own, then to revert and become the joint property of the grantors/ * * * the court held, that the conveyance created an absolute estate in the grantee, that the proviso was repugnant to the deed and void.\u201d\nIn Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company v. Hewett, 55 Wis. 96, the owner of land conveyed it by deed, quitclaiming in the granting clause all his right, title and interest. By a subsequent clause it was declared that the interest and title intended to-be conveyed was only that acquired by him through a certain deed, conveying an undivided half. It was held that the premises or granting clause controlled the other clause which conflicted with it, and that the grantor\u2019s whole interest passed.\nIn Case v. Dwire, 60 Iowa, 442, Burwell conveyed land to Case \u201cto have and to hold the same unto her, the said Case, as her own and indefeasible estate, to be owned, controlled, managed, and, if desired, sold and conveyed by her, or those who may act for her as her legal representatives or guardians during her lifetime,\u201d upon condition however that \u201cwhatever part or parcel of said premises may be owned or held by the said Case at the time of her decease, or of which she may die seized, or in which she may at that time have any right, title, or interest, shall revert to, vest in, and again become the absolute and indefeasible property of the grantor, or,. in case of his death, to his lawful heirs, to the \u00e1bsolute exclusion and inhibition of all other persons or heirs.\u201d The court held that Case took an absolute title in fee, and that the condition, being repugnant to the fee, was void, and that, upon the death of Case, the land went .to her heirs, and.not to Burwell, who survived her. See to the same effect Maker v. Lazell, 83 Me. 562; Pike v. Monroe, 36 Me. 309; 2 Devlin on Deeds (2nd Ed.), \u00a7 \u00a7 838, 960; 1 Jones on \u201cThe Daw of Real Property in Conveyances,\u201d \u00a7 \u00a7 664, 670, and cases cited.\nThe intent of the testator does not always govern the construction of wills. There are rules of law which control their construction. In Bernstein v. Bramble, 81 Ark. 480, the will m question contained these words: \u201cAll- the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real as well as personal, and wheresoever'situated, I hereby devise, give and bequeath to my.beloved wife, Minna Elle, to have and to hold the same in fee simple forever. But in case of the death of my beloved wife, it is my will that all the estate then remaining and not disposed of by her by a last will or other writing shall pass to my said brother, Moritz Elle, and my sister, Henrietta Bernstein, or their heirs in equal parts.\u201d This court held that the property in controversy was devised to Minna Elle in fee simple, \u201cwith an absolute power of disposition either by sale or devise clearly and unmistakably implied,\u201d and that the latter clause being repugnant to the first was void. See authorities cited, and Ide v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500; Jackson v. Bull, 10 Johns. 19; and Jackson v. DeLancy, 13 Johns. 538, 552.\nThe conveyance in fee simple carries with it the power to dispose of the estate by deed or will. The power of alienation is an inseparable incident of such an estate. So the deed in question conveyed to Mrs. Ellsberry the estate in fee simple with the power to dispose of it. The limitation of it to a life estate was repugnant to the granting clause, and was void.\nReversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "Battue, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. M. CarlLee and N. W. Norton for appellants.", "Andreivs & Wood and Campbell & Stevenson, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CarLee v. Ellsberry.\nOpinion delivered March 25, 1907.\nDeed \u2014 repugnancy between granting and habendum clauses. \u2014 Where the granting clause in a deed conveys the land described to the grantee in fee simple, a proviso in the habendum clause .limiting the estate conveyed in certain contingencies to a life estate is repugnant to the granting clause and void.\nAppeal from Woodruff Circuit Court, Northern District; Hance N. Hutton, Judge;\nreversed.\nB. M. CarlLee and N. W. Norton for appellants.\nIn case of conflict in a deed, the granting clause must prevail. 3 Ark. 18; 93 S. W. (Ark.) 979 and cases cited.\nAndreivs & Wood and Campbell & Stevenson, for appellee.\n1. The intent of the grantor should prevail in the construction of a deed. 3 Ark. 56; 87 Ky. 26; 142 Mo. 310; 71 Mich. 633; 1 N. Y. 102; 46 Mich. 305; 3 Atk. 136; 53 Ark. 185.\n2. A deed should be construed as a whole, and effect should be given to every part of it, if possible. 3 Ark. supra, and other cases cited by appellant; 42 Pa. St. 386; 1 S. &'R.. 374; 8 S. W. 846; 14 S. W. 904; 66 S. W. 1023; 170 S. W. 702; 19 S. W. 1097; 86 S. W. itii; 83 S. W. 436; 44 S. W. 250.; 48 S. W. 635; 3 Wash. Real Prop. 468; 3 Kerr, Real prop. 2339; 2 Devlin, Deeds, \u00a7 214; 135 Penn. 620; 104 Cal. 298; 72 N. W. 339. The habendum and the proviso immediately following it in this deed limit the estate conveyed to Georgena Ellsberry; and this limitation, being expressed in appropriate words, should be given full force and effect in accordance with the statute. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 733.\nAt the common law, a stranger to those mentioned in the premises of a deed might be introduced in the habendum as a grantee in the remainder. Devlin on Deeds, 2 Ed. \u00a7 \u00a7 219, 220; 70 S. W. 702; 146 Mo. 612; 86 Mo. 671; 165 Mo. 380; 70 N. W. 1006; 37 Pac. 1049; 41 Cal. 290; 60 Ind. 334; 3 Kerr, Real Prop. \u00a7 2339; Brewster, Conveyancing, 163.\n3. Tiffany, Real Prop. 871. Hence, the appellee, although not appearing as a grantee in the premises of the deed, will take by way of remainder, since he does appear in the proviso following the habendum. 39 S. W. 164; 66 S. W. 1023; 60 Tex. 472; 73 Tex. 133.\n4. The word \u201crevert\u201d used by the conveyancer in the deed was inapt, and its meaning should be construed in connection with the-manifest intention of the grantor. 3 Wash. Real Prop. 2360." }, "file_name": "0209-01", "first_page_order": 229, "last_page_order": 234 }