{ "id": 1316087, "name": "Dempsey v. Davis", "name_abbreviation": "Dempsey v. Davis", "decision_date": "1911-04-03", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "570", "last_page": "575", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "98 Ark. 570" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "104 N. W. 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "57 N. E. 238", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "50 Mo. 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "102 Pa. St. 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 502748 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/102/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 S. W. 798", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "78 Ark. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1497309 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/78/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ark. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1911727 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/53/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1329195 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/58/0303-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 U. S. 83", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3592896 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/166/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 Pa. 645", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 862024 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/165/0645-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Miss. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 11261552 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/24/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Ga. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 66243 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ga/80/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Ga. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 1388688 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ga/3/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 N. C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2083018 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/57/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S. C. 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 359576 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/sc/11/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 N. E. 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "149 Ind. 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1567619 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/149/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Bush 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bush", "case_ids": [ 6056753 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/71/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 S. W. 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "98 Ky. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 8591673 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/98/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 N. J. Eq. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Eq.", "case_ids": [ 518861 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nj-eq/13/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 B. Mon. 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "B. Mon.", "case_ids": [ 4445275 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/50/0032-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505558 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S. W. 581", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "67 Ark. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "137 Fed. Rep. 823", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "87 S. W. 1120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "47 Md. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1819055 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/md/47/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S. W. 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "161 Pa. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 854216 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/161/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Grant, Cas. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Grant", "case_ids": [ 227688 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/grant/2/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Am. Dec. 519", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "12 Ky. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 4217708 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/12/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S. W. 904", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Ind. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1508880 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/1/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ark. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1333965 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/68/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Fed. Rep. 831", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "64 Ark. 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1907367 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/64/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ark. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "58 Fed. 438", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "18 Cal. 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2300906 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/cal/18/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Am. Dec. 507", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "137 Fed. Rep. 822", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3864568 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/137/0822-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505585 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ark. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728167 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/15/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N. H. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 11287724 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/55/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Pick. (Mass.) 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "case_ids": [ 2038848 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/37/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ark. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893403 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/44/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1152570 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/67/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 Ark. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1543447 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/95/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1329195 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/58/0303-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ark. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 691, "char_count": 13089, "ocr_confidence": 0.668, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.796410940460306e-07, "percentile": 0.951196189430349 }, "sha256": "e3562826bcd4e228c6fe0b65b81697ebe37ea6cf279cfc424cd5d7c76df13c2c", "simhash": "1:afad346171789ebc", "word_count": 2384 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:48:44.239381+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Dempsey v. Davis." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hart, J.,\n(after stating the facts). A deed must be construed according to the intention of the parties, as manifested by the language of the whole instrument; and it is our duty to give all parts of the deed such construction, if possible, as that they will stand together; but where there is a repugnancy between the granting and habendum clauses, the former will control the latter. Whetstone v. Hunt, 78 Ark. 231.\nBearing in mind these fundamental rules of construction, it is clear that the words \u201cchildren, the natural offspring of her body,\u201d are synonymous with \u201cbodily heirs\u201d or \u201cheirs of her body,\u201d and exclude the idea that they are synonymous with the general word, \u201cheirs.\u201d When so construed, the estate granted is controlled by the decision in the following cases: Watson v. Wolff-Goldman Realty Co., 95 Ark. 18; Wilmans v. Robinson, 67 Ark. 517; Horsley v. Hilburn, 44 Ark. 458. That is to say, according to the rule announced in those cases, the effect of the granting clause was to create an estate tail, which under our statute gave a life estate to Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey and the remainder in fee simple to the person or persons to whom the estate tail would first pass according to the common law.\nThe persons to whom the estate tail would first pass, according to the course of the common law, under the granting clause of the deed are the heirs of the body of the life tenant. If there are none such, the estate will by operation of law revert to the grantor. Corbin v. Healy, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 514; Fales v. Currier, 55 N. H. 392.\nIt is contended by counsel for defendants that the use of the words, \u201cto hers and their own proper use, benefit and behoof forever in fee simple,\u201d enlarged the estate to. a fee simple in Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey.\nMr. Washburn says \u201cthat the test t\u00f3 be applied to an habendum in a deed is, whether -it can be construed so as to stand with the premises, or is so repugnant in its operation as to be irreconcilable with the latter. In the one case it limits and explains the grant; in the other it is rejected as of no effect.\u201d 3 Washburn on Real Property (5 ed.), p. 469.\nIn the application of this rule in the case of Corbin v. Healy, supra, the court held that where an estate tail is given the fact that the habendum of the deed creating it is to the grantee and his heirs will not\u00bbenlarge the estate to a fee simple; nor will the entail be destroyed by a warranty to the grantee \u201cand his heirs as aforesaid.\u201d There the habendum clause was to have the same, and the court held it to mean the limited estate in the land before granted which was an estate tail, otherwise it would have been repugnant to the granting clause, instead of explanatory of it.\nAs we have already seen, by the common law, Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey became seized of an estate tail under the granting clause of the deed in question, which by our statute' was converted into an estate for life.\nNow, at common law, the words \u201cheirs\u201d was necessary to convey a fee simple by deed, and in the case of Hardage v. Stroope, 58 Ark. at p. 313, the court said: \u201cAn express direction that the grantee should have the fee simple in the land would not have supplied the place of the word \u2018heirs.\u2019 \u201d Hence, by the rules of the common law, the habendum clause in the present deed does not enlarge the granting clause, but when used to explain it refers to the limited estate granted, and means that the heirs of the body of the life tenant take the remainder in fee simple. If the words used in the- granting clause are to be given their common-law meaning, so, too, the words in the other parts of the deed should be construed by the rules of the common law.\nAs stated in Corbin v. Healy, supra, the covenants only extend to the estate granted; and where there is no peculiar language to warrant such a construction, they do not enlarge the estate granted. See also Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. 222.\nIn this way all parts of the deed harmonize with each other; otherwise the granting and habendum clauses will conflict, and the latter must give way to the former. There are many decisions on the construction of deeds, but each is made with reference to the peculiar words used in the deed and the statutes, changing the rules of the common law. We believe the construction we have given the deed under consideration gives effect to every part of it, and is in harmony -with our other decisions which bear on- the principles decided. This case is not governed by Hardage v. Stroope, 58 Ark. 303. In that case the deed did not, as does the one under consideration, create an estate at common law, and therefore did not come within section 735 of Kirby\u2019s Digest, which abolished fees tail and creates a life estate in the\u2019 first taker with a remainder over in fee simple to the one to whom the estate tail would first pass .according to the course of the common law under the deed. Black v. Webb, 72 Ark. 336.\nIt follows that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The decree will he reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hart, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Wade Kitchens and C. W. McKay, for appellants.", "Hamby, Haynie & Hamby and Pozvell & Taylor, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Dempsey v. Davis.\nOpinion delivered April 3, 1911.\n1. Deeds \u2014 construction.\u2014A deed must be construed according to the intention of the parties, as manifested by the language of the whole instrument, giving all parts of the deed such construction, if possible, that they will stand together; but where there is a repugnancy between the granting and habendum clauses, the former will control the latter. (Page 573.)\n2. Same \u2014 EEE tail. \u2014 \u2018Where a deed conveyed land to the grantee and her children, \u201cthe natural offspring of her body,\u201d the effect thereof at common law was to create\u2019 an estate tail, but under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 735> a life estate was created in the grantee with fee in the person or persons to whom the estate tail would first pass at common law, towit, the heirs of the grantee\u2019s body; and if there be none such, the estate would revert to the grantor. (Page 573.)\n3. Same \u2014 granting and i-iabendum clauses. \u2014 Where a deed created a fee tail at common law, Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 73s, applies, though the habendum clause is \u201cto hers (the grantee\u2019s) and their own proper use, benefit and behoof forever in fee simple.\u201d (Page 574.)\nAppeal from Columbia Chancery Court; James M. Barker, Chancellor;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThis cause involves the construction of the following deed:\n\u201cState of Arkansas.\n\u201cCounty of Columbia.\n\u201cKnow all men by these presents that we, William A. and Selestia Ann Beasley, for and in consideration of the love and affection that we have to our daughter, Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey, wife of John Dempsey, we do hereby give and bequeath and convey unto our said daughter and her children, the natural offspring of her body, all the right, title and interest with the possession of the following property, towit, t\u00edre west half of section two, and the northeast quarter and the east half of the southeast quarter and the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section three, containing about five hundred and eighty acres of land, all in township sixteen south, range twenty-two west, with and singular the right, title and appurtenances thereunto belonging to hers and their own proper use, benefit and behoof forever in fee simple.\n\u201cAnd -we, the said William A. and Selestia Ann Beasley, for ourselves and heirs, administrators and executors, will warrant and defend the right, title and interest of and possession of the same unto them to be free from our claim or the claims of any other person or persons claiming the same for us or under us or for our use or benefit forever, as witness our hands and seals this October, 1875.\u201d\nThe deed was duly acknowledged and recorded, and is made an exhibit to the complaint in this cause. The children of Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey are the plaintiffs in the action, and they allege:\n\u201c4. That the purpose and effect of said conveyance was to convey to the said Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey, who was then the wife of John Dempsey, now deceased, a life estate in said lands with the remainder of the fee therein to such children as were the issue of her body, and that the said Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey entered- into the possession thereof and held the same and now holds the same for her benefit and her said children; that at the time the aforesaid lands were deeded to the said Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey she had no children; that the plaintiffs were born since the making of said deed.\n\u201c5. That during the year 1889, -and till the year 1900, inclusive, at various times the said Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey and her said husband, John Dempsey, sold and -conveyed unto the defendants their interest in the pine timber standing on said land.\n\u201c6. That, during the time mentioned in the fifth paragraph of 'this complaint, the defendants were well and fully advised and informed as to the interest of these plaintiffs in said land, ibut wilfully disregarded plaintiff\u2019s rights of inheritance therein, and cut, removed and appropriated to themselves all the merchantable pine timber thereon.\u201d\nThe prayer of the complaint is that defendants be made to account for the value of the timber cut and removed from the land by the defendants, and that a master be appointed with power to take testimony for -the purpose of ascertaining and stating the amount and value of the timber so cut and removed. They further pray that, if -the court finds that they are not now entitled to recover the value of the timber cut and removed, the value thereof ibe impounded and invested for the benefit of such plaintiffs as may take the estate of inheritance in said lands after the life estate of Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey be terminated.\nThe defendants, J. M. and V. M. Davis, demurred to the complaint, which was sustained by the court.\nThe plaintiffs refused to plead further, and, a decree having been entered dismissing their complaint for want of equity, they have appealed.\nWade Kitchens and C. W. McKay, for appellants.\n1. The deed gave to Selestia Ann Jinett Dempsey a life estate with remainder to her children to be born. 5 Cyc. 679; 137 Fed. Rep. 822. The intent will prevail, taking the .instrument as a whole, and the deed will not be declared void unless the various clauses are so repugnant as to leave no other course. Devlin on Deeds, \u00a7 836; 3 Am. Dec. 507; 18 Cal. 137; 58 Fed. 438; 78 Ark. 231; 64 Ark. 240-243; 137 Fed. Rep. 831. The deed created an estate tail at common law, which under our statute gave a life estate to the mother, remainder in fee to her children. 4 Kent, Com. 225; Tiedeman on Real Property, 425; Cooley\u2019s Blackstone, vol. 1 (4 ed.) 629; Tiffany on Real Prop, par. 25, 434; 13 Cyc. 662; Washb. Real Prop. vol. 2 (6 ed.), \u00a7 1616; 68 Ark. 369; 1 Ind. 107; 14 S. W. 904; 12 Ky. 27; 28 Ala. 3i4;*84 Am. Dec. 519; 2 Grant, Cas. 249; 161 Pa. 643; 73 S. W. 109; 68 Ark. 369; 47 Md. 513; 87 S. W. 1120; 137 Fed. Rep. 823.\n2. If the words \u201cher children, the offspring of her body,\u201d are words of limitation (see cases sup.), then the mother took a life estate with remainder in fee to her children \u2014 a fee -tail at common law. 1 Washb. on Real Prop. (6 ed.) 84, \u00a7 \u00a7 178, 195; 1 Kerr on Real Prop. 452; 1 Tiedeman, Real Property, \u00a7 47; 1 Kerr on Real Prop. \u00a7 460; 67 Ark. 520; Cooley\u2019s Blackstone (4 ed.) 515, 578, 580; 58 Ark. 313; 4 Kent, Com-. (14 ed.) 236, 408.\n3. The interest of appellants being that of remaindermen, the appellees are liable for waste. 128 S. W. 581.\nHamby, Haynie & Hamby and Pozvell & Taylor, for appellees.\n1. The word \u201cchildren\u201d is often construed to be synonymous with \u201cheirs.\u201d 68 Ark. 369; 72 Ark. 539. \u201cChildren\u201d will be construed to be words of limitation and mean \u201cheirs\u201d when no children were in being at date of the deed. 6 Coke 16a; 14 \u25a0Gray 174; 16 East 399; 85 111. 242; 11 B. Mon. 32; 13 N. J. Eq. 236; 98 Ky. 285; 51 S. W. 173; 8 Bush 434; 149 Ind. 51; 48 N. E. 630; 11 S. C. 294; 57 N. C. 334; 3 Ga. 551; 80 Ga. 391; 24 Miss. 343; 165 Pa. 645; 166 U. S. 83. The after-born children took as heirs, and the deed passed a fee simple estate. 58 Ark. 303. There is no repugnancy in the granting and habendum clauses \u2014 the latter ^enlarges the fee tail to a fee simple estate.\n2. The habendum may enlarge or extend, but not abridge, the estate limited in the premises. 53 Ark. 107; 78 Ark. 230; .82 Id. 209; 92 Id. 324; Elphinstone, Interp. Deeds, rule 66, p. 217. If the premises and habendum contain different express limitations, .the limitation in the latter, if possible, will be considered explanatory of the granting clause; but, if repugnant, they will be considered in the manner most beneficial to the grantee. Cases supra; 2 Black. Com. 288; 2 Bacon, Abr. 260; 9 S. W. 798; 102 Pa. St. 347; 50 Mo. 192; 57 N. E. 238; 104 N. W. 579; Coke, Eitt. 299a; 2 Sanders, Uses & Trusts (4 ed.), p. 318; Brewster on Conv. par. 131.\n3. All deeds shall be construed to convey a complete estate unless expressly limited by words in the deed. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 733- The word \u201cheirs\u201d is no longer necessary to create an estate in fee simple. Ib." }, "file_name": "0570-01", "first_page_order": 590, "last_page_order": 595 }