Langley v. Honey

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Langley v. Honey

38 A. 699, 20 R.I. 698, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 108

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 8, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A. 699 (Langley v. Honey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Langley v. Honey, 38 A. 699, 20 R.I. 698, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 108 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court is of the opinion that the intention of the grantor in the deed from Sarah B. Thayer to John S. Langley, dated February 27, 1872, as appears both from the deed itself and the conduct of the parties in interest, was to convey all of her interest in the estate of her grandfather, John S. Langley, to the respondent in the present petition, John S. Langley. The clause in the deed which describes this property as inherited from her father is simply a matter of false description. Rejecting this, according to well-settled rules of construction, there is still left a good conveyance. Waterman v. Andrews, 14 R. I. 589; 2 Pingree Real Pr. § 1378; 2 Devlin on Deeds, §§ 835, 836. The court is, therefore, of the opinion that the respondent, John S. Langley, took the title of Sarah B. Thayer under said deed, and that the petitioners have no valid claim to the proceeds of the land in the hands of the commissioner.

Petition denied and dismissed with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The court is of the opinion that the intention of the grantor in the deed from Sarah B. Thayer to John S. Langley, dated February 27, 1872, as appears both from the deed itself and the conduct of the parties in interest, was to convey all of her interest in the estate of her grandfather, John S. Langley, to the respondent in the present petition, John S. Langley. The clause in the deed which describes this property as inherited from her father is simply a matter of false description. Rejecting this, according to well-settled rules of construction, there is still left a good conveyance. Waterman v. Andrews, 14 R. I. 589; 2 Pingree Real Pr. § 1378; 2 Devlin on Deeds, §§ 835, 836. The court is, therefore, of the opinion that the respondent, John S. Langley, took the title of Sarah B. Thayer under said deed, and that the petitioners have no valid claim to the proceeds of the land in the hands of the commissioner.

Petition denied and dismissed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A. 699, 20 R.I. 698, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langley-v-honey-ri-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack