Cunningham v. Davis
Cunningham v. Davis
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
In form the instrument is a deed. It was so called by the maker. It was acknowledged as such by him before a justice of the peace. Its character must be determined from its several provisions. If by it any present interest was vested it should be held to be a deed. If it was not to have any operation or effect until the death of the maker it could not be treated as a deed, although it was so named, and is in form a deed. The provision in these words, “ And that this deed do not take effect until after my death/’ coupled with the direction that the object of the bounty of the maker of the instrument should pay all his debts and have only the remainder of his property, convinces us that the paper was testamentary in its character.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- T. W. Cunningham v. Julia A. Davis
- Cited By
- 15 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Testamentary Writing. Inform of deed. lime of taking effect. An instrument of writing which is not to take effect until the death of the maker is testamentary in its character, though it be in the form of a deed, acknowledged as such, and styled a “ deed ” by its own language. 2. Same. Provisions distinguishing from deed. A provision in such instrument that “this deed do not take effect until after my (the maker’s) death,” coupled with a direction that the beneficiary shall pay the maker’s debts and have only the remaining property, shows the testamentary character of the instrument.