Winborne v. . Downing

Merrimon, C. J.: The husband could not, anterior to the present Constitution, make a deed conveying real estate to his wife, valid at law, but it is properly conceded by the appellant that such a deed would be upheld in equity if the same were founded upon a valuable consideration. Huntly v. Huntly, 8 Ired. Eq., 250; Garner v. Garner, Bush. Eq., 1; Walton v. Parish, 95 N. C., 259. The consideration of the deed in question from the defendant William Downing to his wife was a valuable one, and hence that deed must be upheld as sufficient and efficient *22 against the plaintiff in this action, unless, as he contends, the deed conveyed to the wife but a life-estate in the land. He insists that, in that case, he is entitled to recover, because it appears that the wife died after the execution of the deed of the Sheriff to him, and before the bringing of this action; and because, further, the Sheriff’s deed conveyed to him the reversion of the husband. We think the deed to the wife mentioned was intended to, and did, in equity, convey to her the fee-simple estate in the land. It purports to convey the land and “to warrant and defend the title of the same to her, the said Celia Downing, her heirs and assigns forever.” This clause of warranty as to “her heirs,” and the term “forever,” would be useless and meaningless, if it was intended that she should have but a life-estate. The purpose thus clearly appearing, the deed must be so interpreted as to effectuate that purpose, if there are apt words and phraseology in it that will allow of such interpretation. There are such words.. There are words of inheritance-applicable to the wife, the bargainee in the deed, that have no sensible meaning or proper application otherwise. The deed is disorderly and informal; the clause of warranty and the habendum clause are confusedly placed together, but for this, the connection between the words “-to her, the said Celia Downing, her heirs and assigns forever,” would be orderly and appear to serve their proper purpose in conveying the fee. Thus applying them, the deed must be read thus: “with all and every improvement there belonging to him, the said William Downing, * * * to her, the said Celia Downing, her heirs or assigns forever.” How the exact punctuation appears in the deed, or whether there is-any at all, does not appear to us, but if need be, the pune-tuation will be disregarded in order to effectuate the purpose clearly appearing. There are numerous cases, very like the present one, that fully sustain the interpretation we have *23 given the deed in question. Bunn v. Wells, 94 N. C., 67; Ricks v. Pulliam, 94 N. C., 225; Graybeal v. Davis, 95 N. C., 508; Hicks v. Bullock, 96 N. C., 164. It thus appears that the defendant William Downing had no interest in the land the Sheriff undertook and purported to sell and convey to the plaintiff at the time of the supposed sale, and therefore the latter has no title thereto and is not entitled to recover. Affirmed.