Reaves v. Ore Knob Copper Co.

PeaksoN C. J. It is settled, that under the Act, 1715, a deed duly registered has the effect of a feoffment; and no consideration is necessary in order to pass the legal estate. It was conceded on the argument, mines and minerals not severed from the land, are land, and may be conveyed in the same way, and will descend in the same way. So the (¡ase turns upon the effect of the deed, Jesse H. Reaves to George T. Reaves, set out in the case. The plaintiff takes the position, the deed was made without consideration, and there being no declaration of a use, there was a resulting use in the grantor which drew back the legal estate. It is familiar learning, if a feoffment be made for consideration, the feoffee acquires title. If a feoffment be made- without consideration, the feoffor may declare the uses, or ho may reserve to himself a power to declare the uses at any future time, or he may give to another the power to declare uses, and so much of the use as is not thus disposed of, results to the feoffor. If there be no declaration of a use and no power of appointment, it follows that the entire use results to the feoffor. The statute brings to it the entire legal estate ; the feoffment has no practical effect and was a vain thing. *596 The plaintiffs’ counsel, in a very learned argument, contends that such is the case in regard to the operation of the deed under consideration. It is insisted for the defendant, the deed was made for a valuable consideration; and he relies upon the words, “ This deed witnesseth that I, Jesse H. Reaves have this day sold and by these presents do convey unto Greorge T. Reaves,” &c. So the case is narrowed down to this, does the import and meaning of the words “ have this day sold ” rebut the presumption of a resulting use in the feoffor which would draw back the legal title ? We have seen that a declaration of a use, or a power of appointment rebuts the presumption of a resulting irse, except as to so much of the use as is not disposed of. It is learning equally familiar, if A buys and pays for a tract of land and directs title to be made to B without a declaration of the use, there is a resulting use to A; but if B is the son of A, the relation rebuts the presumption of a resulting use; so if a father makes a feoffment to a son, the relation rebuts the presumption of a resulting use. The whole current of the authorities show that the court seizes upon any circumstance to rebut the presumption of a resulting use, when no part of the use is disposed of, under the maxim “ ut res mogis vat eat quam jperea.tr and will not readily come to the conclusion that the parties have done an idle act. This deed shows upon its face that Jesse Reaves intended to convey the “ mines and minerals ” to George Reaves; and as we think the word “ sold ” in the connection in which it is used, imports, ex vi termini, that the deed was made for a valuable consideration, so as to rebut the presumption of a resulting use, which would defeat the operation of the deed and make the action of the parties a vain thing; There is no error. Judgment below affirmed. Bee Oueiam. Judgment affirmed.