Parker v. Murch
Parker v. Murch
Opinion of the Court
The question involved in this case is the right to the possession of two lots of land conveyed to the plaintiff by William Murch by deed dated May 4, 1863, and depends upon the construction to be given to the language used in that deed. The plaintiff claims as grantee, and the defendant is guardian of
Thus construed it will appear that the premises are conveyed to the grantee during her life, coupled with a trust for certain children and the support of the father. In this connection the duration of the trust estate is not limited. Subsequently this trust is limited. At the decease of the said Murch the land is to descend in equal shares to the children, for whose benefit the trust was in part created, and the said Drusilla was then to have “her thirds only.” .The trust then must necessarily cease at the death of the father, for subsequent to that event the land must go to the children with the exception of the one-third interest which was reserved to “the said Drusilla.” No other construction can be given to the deed unless we strike these words from it, while with it that which goes before as well as that which comes after may have its proper meaning. In the first and last clause quoted the grant is coupled with the trust and when the trust ceases, the grant must cease also. Both the grant to her during life and to her and her heirs and assigns must cease with the trust, for she could hold only her thirds in no other way than in trust. There
When the land descended to the children, in the language of the deed she is to have “her thirds only.” This must be understood as an estate in the nature of dower. It cannot be dower because the husband was not seized in fee during coverture. She then so far as now appears has a life estate in an undivided third part of the demanded premises. In her writ she demands a fee, and though by it. S., c. 104, § 10, a demandant may recover an undivided portion of that which is claimed, yet by §§ 3 and 8 of the same chapter the estate claimed must be set out and the recovery if any, must be according to the allegations. It is however competent for the court upon motion, and upon such terms as may be reasonable to allow the necessary amendment to the plaintiff’s writ. Howe v. Wildes, 34 Maine, 566; Hamilton v. Wentworth, 58 Maine, 101. Exceptions sustained.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Drusilla G. Parker v. Llewellyn F. Murch
- Status
- Published