Graham v. Triplett

Mississippi Supreme Court

Graham v. Triplett

114 So. 621, 148 Miss. 299, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 63

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 21, 1927

DocketNo. 26681.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 114 So. 621 (Graham v. Triplett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graham v. Triplett, 114 So. 621, 148 Miss. 299, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 63 (Mich. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

*304 Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellees, heirs at law of Mary M. Triplett, deceased, filed this suit against the appellants for the purpose of obtaining the cancellation of a claim by the appellants to land claimed hy the. appellees as a cloud on their title thereto. The bill alleges, in substance, that in February, 1912, Mrs. M. R. Burch, the then owner of the land, executed and delivered to Mary M. Triplett an instrument in writing, alleged to be a deed, which reads as follows:

“Know all men by these .presents that for and in con-' sideration of the natural love and affection I have and do bear towards Mary M. Triplett, wife of. B.O. Trip-lett, I hereby- grant, bargain, and convey to her and her heirs and assigns -forever, to have and to hold after, my death [the following described property, to-wit, lying and being in said county of Noxubee, and state of Mississippi, being the East one-half of West one-half, less Northwest quarter, Southeast quarter, Southwest quar *305 ter, section 35, township 16, Range 15, containing’ one hundred fifty acres, more or less,”

Mary M. Triplett then lived, and for a number of years thereafter continued to live, with Mrs. Burch on the land described in the instrument. In July, 1925, Mrs. Burch devised the land to the appellants by will, which was probated after her death, under which they ■claim and are asserting title to the land. A demurrer interposed by the appellants to the bill of complaint was overruled, and they have appealed to this court for the purpose of settling the principles of the case.

The appellants’ contention is that the instrument executed and delivered by Mrs. Burch to Mary M. Triplett in February, 1912, is a will, and not a deed, and was therefore revoked by the later will executed by Mrs. Burch. This instrument is a deed in form, contains no provision prohibiting it from taking effect until the grantor’s death, but simply postpones the possession and use of the land by the grantee until the death of the grantor; it is therefore a deed in fact and valid, under section 2762, Code of 1906 (Hemingway’s Code 1927, section 2421). Wall v. Wall, 30 Miss. 91, 64 Am. Dec. 147; Simpson v. McGee, 112 Miss. 344, 73 So. 55, 11 A. L. R. 4; Cox v. Reed, 113 Miss. 488, 74 So. 330, 11 A. L. R. 5; Kelly v. Covington, 119 Miss. 658, 81 So. 485; Stubblefield v. Haywood, 123 Miss. 480, 86 So. 295.

Affirmed and remanded, with leave to "the appellants to answer the bill within thirty days after the filing of the mandate in the court below.

Affirmed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*304 Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellees, heirs at law of Mary M. Triplett, deceased, filed this suit against the appellants for the purpose of obtaining the cancellation of a claim by the appellants to land claimed hy the. appellees as a cloud on their title thereto. The bill alleges, in substance, that in February, 1912, Mrs. M. R. Burch, the then owner of the land, executed and delivered to Mary M. Triplett an instrument in writing, alleged to be a deed, which reads as follows:

“Know all men by these .presents that for and in con-' sideration of the natural love and affection I have and do bear towards Mary M. Triplett, wife of. B.O. Trip-lett, I hereby- grant, bargain, and convey to her and her heirs and assigns -forever, to have and to hold after, my death [the following described property, to-wit, lying and being in said county of Noxubee, and state of Mississippi, being the East one-half of West one-half, less Northwest quarter, Southeast quarter, Southwest quar *305 ter, section 35, township 16, Range 15, containing’ one hundred fifty acres, more or less,”

Mary M. Triplett then lived, and for a number of years thereafter continued to live, with Mrs. Burch on the land described in the instrument. In July, 1925, Mrs. Burch devised the land to the appellants by will, which was probated after her death, under which they ■claim and are asserting title to the land. A demurrer interposed by the appellants to the bill of complaint was overruled, and they have appealed to this court for the purpose of settling the principles of the case.

The appellants’ contention is that the instrument executed and delivered by Mrs. Burch to Mary M. Triplett in February, 1912, is a will, and not a deed, and was therefore revoked by the later will executed by Mrs. Burch. This instrument is a deed in form, contains no provision prohibiting it from taking effect until the grantor’s death, but simply postpones the possession and use of the land by the grantee until the death of the grantor; it is therefore a deed in fact and valid, under section 2762, Code of 1906 (Hemingway’s Code 1927, section 2421). Wall v. Wall, 30 Miss. 91, 64 Am. Dec. 147; Simpson v. McGee, 112 Miss. 344, 73 So. 55, 11 A. L. R. 4; Cox v. Reed, 113 Miss. 488, 74 So. 330, 11 A. L. R. 5; Kelly v. Covington, 119 Miss. 658, 81 So. 485; Stubblefield v. Haywood, 123 Miss. 480, 86 So. 295.

Affirmed and remanded, with leave to "the appellants to answer the bill within thirty days after the filing of the mandate in the court below.

Affirmed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 621, 148 Miss. 299, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-triplett-miss-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack