Blackburn v. . Blackburn

13 S.E. 937, 109 N.C. 488

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: September 5, 1891
• Status: Published

Opinion

Shepherd, J.

after stating the case, proceeded: It is very clear that the endorsement on the deed did not operate as an exception or reservation so as to vest an estate for life in Sarah Blackburn. Exceptions and reservations enure only to the benefit of the grantor and those claiming under him, and have no effect by way of passing an estate to a third party. Tiedman, Real Prop., 843; 2 Delvin, Deeds, 979.

We think however (without passing upon the question whether the language used can be construed into a covenant to stand seized to uses), that the judgment of hisPIonor may be sustained on the ground that the endorsement, made before or at the time of the delivery, amounted to a declaration of trust, to-wit, that the grantee should hold the land for the use of the said Sarah for life. Even without consideration, an oral declaration of trust in favor of a third person, made contemporaneously with the transmission of the legal title, will, when established by competent testimony, be recognized and enforced in a court of equity. Pittman v. Pittman, 107 N. C., 159.

If this be so, a fortiori will the Court give effect to such a contemporaneous declaration when made in writing under seal and for a good consideration. No particular form of words is necessary to establish such a trust. “ The intent is what the Courts look to.” 2 Fonb., 36, note; 3 Ves. Jun., 9; Bispham Eq., 98.

The language in our case is very similar to that used in Fisher v. Fields, 10 Johns., 494, which wras held to be suffi cient, and, indeed, upon looking over the many cases in the reports, there can be no doubt upon the question.

The grantee, then, taking the title accompanied with this contemporaneous declaration, must be declared seized of the land in trust for Sarah Blackburn for the term of her natural life.

Affirmed.