Huber v. Crosland
Huber v. Crosland
Opinion of the Court
While the deed from George W. Crosland to Catharine L. Crosland is peculiar in its phraseology, we are of opinion that the entire beneficial interest in the property embraced in the deed remained in the' parties thereto. That this was the construction placed upon it by the parties themselves, is manifest from the fact of their joint execution of a mortgage in fee of the premises to the building association. If they did not think they were the owners in fee, they penetrated a fraud upon the latter. We are unwilling to impute such an act to them, but prefer to believe that they executed the mortgage in good faith, as owners of the fee. We think they were right in their construction of the deed. It follows that the mortgage was good as to the entire interest, and the purchasers under it took a good title.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- L. HUBER v. G. W. CROSLAND
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (a) A grantor conveyed land to Ms mother, Catharine L. Crosland, “ with the reversions, remainders,” etc., for her support and maintenance: “ and should there bo any remainder thereafter, the same to revert to her legal heirs, subject to the will and pleasure of my father, John M. Crosland, in the premises, as may be by Mm defined hereafter.” (b) The deed constituted the father the grantee’s “ sole trustee and attorney in fact, during his natural life, with full power to sell, rent, lease and devise to third parties for and in her name, and also to receive and receipt for any and all moneys due to or to become due from said estate,” and to pay demands against the same: 1. In such case, by said conveyance the entire beneficial interest in the premises was conveyed to the father and mother, and a sheriff’s sale of the land on a judgment obtained on a mortgage executed jointly by them, passed a good title in fee-simple to the purchasers, against the heirs at law of the mother. 2. Creditors have rights as well as debtors; and creditors, each claiming the superior lien upon real estate sold at sheriff’s sale, may unite in purchasing the properly for their joint benefit, for the purpose of preventing subsequent litigation between themselves in the distribution of the proceeds.