Blair v. . Osborne

Ashe, J, The only question which need be considered in this case turns upon the interpretation of the deed made by Margaret to Araminta Blair. The deed operates as a covenant to stand seized to uses. In the premises of the deed, the land in dispute is given to Araminta alone, and the habendum is to her and her children. Do the children of Araminta take an immediate estate in joint-tenancy with their mother, or an estate in joint-tenancy in remainder for their lives ? The deed in the absence of any words of inheritance unquestionably conveys only a life estate to the donees, and whether the children take the estate jointly with their mother, or in remainder after her life, the estate is a joint-tenancy, for the act of 1784 which converted joint tenancies into estates in common, had reference only to estates of inheritance. Such is the reasonable construction of the, act and the interpretation which has been given to it hy this court in Powell v. Allen, 75 N. C., 450. The premises of a deed are used to set forth the names of the parties, any recitals of deeds, &c., that may be deemed necessary to explain the reasons upon which the conveyance is founded and the consideration upon which it is. made; and it is the office of the habendum to determine the’ *420 estate or interest which is granted, though this may be performed by the premises, in which case,- the habendum may explain, enlarge or qualify the premises, but not be totally contrary or repugnant. 2 Blk., 298. A deed' may be good without any habendum, but where it is used it may materially qualify the statement of the premises. In this deed', /or instance, a life estate is given to Araminta in the premises, and the habendum is to her and her children. The ■effect of the habendum standing alone would give a joint .estate to Araminta and her children, but to give it such a .construction would be inconsistent with and repugnant to ,the premises, in which an estate is given to the mother .■alone. But the deed should have such a construction as is nnost favorable to the minds and intent of the parties as the .rules of law will admit. We think it most probable when ihas^deed was made, it was the intention of the donor to give the Whole .estate to Araminta fpr life and after death to her children absolutely, so as to exclude the husband of the donee from an interest therein. If that was the intention, the form of the .deed for that purpose comports with the rules of construction, for the doctrine is laid down in Shepherd’s Touchstone, 151, tha t one who is not named in the premises may nevertheless take an estate in remainder by limitation in the habendum, 2 Roll. Abr., 68; Hob., 313. In 3 Leon Ca., 60, it is said that the habendum shall never introduce one who is a stranger to the premises to take as grantee, but he may take by way of remainder. Applying this principle to our case, the construction must be to give an estate for life to Araminta, and an estate for life in joint-tenancy to her children, the plaintiffs, in remainder. This construction necessarily defeats the petition for partition, for it is a general rule prevailing in England . and in this country, “ that no person has the right to de,mand any court to enforce a compulsory partition, unless ;he has an estate in possession — one by virtue of which he *421 is entitled to enjoy the present rents or the possession of the property as one of the co-tenants.” Freeman on Co-Tenancy, § 146. There is error. The petition cannot fee sustained. Let this be certified to the superior eourt of Mecklenburg county, that the issues and proceedings in that court may be transmitted to the superior eourt clerk of that county to the end that the petition be dismissed. Error. Petition dismissed.