habendum clause in Indiana

15 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1893–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Meisler v. Gull Oil, Inc.green indctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023According to Citation, “the argument that [a leaseholder] failed to produce oil or gas from a small portion of the total leased property—is insufficient to establish that the habendum clause has been breached and to support a partial cancellation of the Lease.” Id. (citing Meisler v. Gull Oil, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1112, 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). 1 Citation asserts “the Affidavit of Cancellation was void because it ‘[sought] to partially terminate the Keck Lease as to only certain lands of the lease.’” Appellee’s Brief at 18-19 (quoting Appellants’ Appendix Volume II at 36). 2023Id. at 262 n.3. [17] In Meisler, the Court saw “no reason to depart from the Wilson analysis,” and similarly concluded that “the Meislers’ argument that Gull Oil failed to produce oil or gas from the Acreage—a small portion of the total leased property—is insufficient to establish that the habendum clause has been breached and to support a partial cancellation of the Lease.” 848 N.E.2d at 1116 .	1	1
Barr v. Sun Exploration Co., Inc.green indctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023The Court noted that the Meislers argued “that the habendum clause and the Lease are divisible and that the clause applies separately to the distinct portions of the leased property,” but concluded from the contract’s language that “[t]here is simply no support in this unambiguous contractual language for the Meislers’ argument that Gull Oil has breached this clause if it fails, for a time, to produce oil or gas from a portion of the leased property,” and “[a]bsent a contrary Court of Appeals of Indiana \| Opinion 22A-MI-1275 \| May 17, 2023 Page 13 of 21 provision in the lease, the habendum cla 2023The Court noted that the Meislers argued “that the habendum clause and the Lease are divisible and that the clause applies separately to the distinct portions of the leased property,” but concluded from the contract’s language that “[t]here is simply no support in this unambiguous contractual language for the Meislers’ argument that Gull Oil has breached this clause if it fails, for a time, to produce oil or gas from a portion of the leased property,” and “[a]bsent a contrary Court of Appeals of Indiana \| Opinion 22A-MI-1275 \| May 17, 2023 Page 13 of 21 provision in the lease, the habendum cla	1	1
Long, Admr. v. Hortongreen indctapp · 1956 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000It is generally held that if there are any inconsistencies between the granting clause and the habendum clause, the granting clause will prevail because the granting clause is “the most dependable expression of the grantor’s intention” and “is considered to be the very essence of the deed.” Long v. Horton, 126 Ind.App. 651 , 133 N.E.2d 568, 570-71 (1956). 2000It is generally held that if there are any inconsistencies between the granting clause and the habendum clause, the granting clause will prevail because the granting clause is “the most dependable expression of the grantor’s intention” and “is considered to be the very essence of the deed.” Long v. Horton, 126 Ind.App. 651 , 133 N.E.2d 568, 570-71 (1956).	1	1
Claridge v. Phelpsgreen indctapp · 1937 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996The Tazians are correct that “when the granting clause of a deed is general or indefinite respecting the estate in the lands conveyed, it may be defined, qualified, and controlled by the habendum.” Claridge v. Phelps, 105 Ind.App. 344 , 11 N.E.2d 503, 504 (1937). 1996The Tazians are correct that “when the granting clause of a deed is general or indefinite respecting the estate in the lands conveyed, it may be defined, qualified, and controlled by the habendum.” Claridge v. Phelps, 105 Ind.App. 344 , 11 N.E.2d 503, 504 (1937).	1	1
Enderle v. Sharmangreen indctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996Enderle v. Sharman, 422 N.E.2d 686, 694 (Ind.Ct.App.1981). 1996Under Enderle v. Sharman, 422 N.E.2d 686, 694-695 (Ind.Ct.App.1981), we must favor the construction of this deed “which reconches the different parts, and rejects the construction which leads to contradiction.” Because the Tazi-ans’ construction of the habendum clause would lead to a contradiction of the clear terms of the deed, we find that the trial court was correct in its decision that the 1873 deed granted a fee simple estate to the Fort Wayne R.R. and, as its successor in interest, to Alice Cline as well. 4 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in its entirety.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
Humphreys v. Fletcher neutral nm · 1922 2 sentences 1976Indiana, etc., Oil Co. v. Grainger (1904), 33 Ind. App. 559 , 70 N.E. 395 ; Brown et al. v. Fowler et al. (1902), 65 Ohio St. 507 , 63 N.E. 76 ; Humphreys v. Fletcher (1922), 27 N.M. 639 , 204 Pac. 70 ; J.J. 1976Indiana, etc., Oil Co. v. Grainger (1904), 33 Ind. App. 559 , 70 N.E. 395 ; Brown et al. v. Fowler et al. (1902), 65 Ohio St. 507 , 63 N.E. 76 ; Humphreys v. Fletcher (1922), 27 N.M. 639 , 204 Pac. 70 ; J.J.	3	1951–1976
Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. Grainger green indctapp · 1904 2 sentences 1976Indiana, etc., Oil Co. v. Grainger (1904), 33 Ind. App. 559 , 70 N.E. 395 ; Brown et al. v. Fowler et al. (1902), 65 Ohio St. 507 , 63 N.E. 76 ; Humphreys v. Fletcher (1922), 27 N.M. 639 , 204 Pac. 70 ; J.J. 1976Indiana, etc., Oil Co. v. Grainger (1904), 33 Ind. App. 559 , 70 N.E. 395 ; Brown et al. v. Fowler et al. (1902), 65 Ohio St. 507 , 63 N.E. 76 ; Humphreys v. Fletcher (1922), 27 N.M. 639 , 204 Pac. 70 ; J.J.	3	1951–1976
Bannin v. Peck green nyappdiv · 1943 2 sentences 1998Bannin v. Peck , 266 App.Div. 209 , 41 N.Y.S.2d 668, 670 . 1998Bannin v. Peck , 266 App.Div. 209 , 41 N.Y.S.2d 668, 670 .	2	1997–1998
Illinois Mid-Continent Co. v. Tennis green indctapp · 1951 2 sentences 1976In Illinois Mid-Continent Co. v. Tennis (1951), 122 Ind. App. 17 , 102 N.E.2d 390 , our Appellate Court stated : “The time for commencing a well as set forth in the lease and the instruments ratifying it and providing a later date for the commencement of operations for the drilling of a well, did not have the effect of extending the definite term of the lease as fixed in the habendum clause. 1976In Illinois Mid-Continent Co. v. Tennis (1951), 122 Ind. App. 17 , 102 N.E.2d 390 , our Appellate Court stated : “The time for commencing a well as set forth in the lease and the instruments ratifying it and providing a later date for the commencement of operations for the drilling of a well, did not have the effect of extending the definite term of the lease as fixed in the habendum clause.	2	1976–1976
Edwards v. Beall green ind · 1881 2 sentences 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 . 1926In Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 , the language of the deed, in its premises, was “convey and warrant to Mrs. Celestine Beall and Mr. John S. Beall,” and, after the description, a habendum clause as follows: “To be held by Mrs. Celestine Beall as her own property, Mr. John S. Beall having the possession of the same during his lifetime; said possession to return to Mrs. Beall if she survives her husband.” It was held that although the general language in the premises purported to convey the property to Celestine and John S. Beall in fee, the habendum clause explained, limited and qualifi	2	1926–1937
Doren v. Gillum green ind · 1894 2 sentences 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 . 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 .	2	1926–1937
Adams v. Merrill green · 1908 2 sentences 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 . 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 .	2	1926–1937
Wilson v. Elliott green indctapp · 1992 2 sentences 2023According to Citation, “the argument that [a leaseholder] failed to produce oil or gas from a small portion of the total leased property—is insufficient to establish that the habendum clause has been breached and to support a partial cancellation of the Lease.” Id. (citing Meisler v. Gull Oil, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1112, 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). 1 Citation asserts “the Affidavit of Cancellation was void because it ‘[sought] to partially terminate the Keck Lease as to only certain lands of the lease.’” Appellee’s Brief at 18-19 (quoting Appellants’ Appendix Volume II at 36). 2023Id. at 262 n.3. [17] In Meisler, the Court saw “no reason to depart from the Wilson analysis,” and similarly concluded that “the Meislers’ argument that Gull Oil failed to produce oil or gas from the Acreage—a small portion of the total leased property—is insufficient to establish that the habendum clause has been breached and to support a partial cancellation of the Lease.” 848 N.E.2d at 1116 .	1	2023–2023
Tazian v. Cline green ind · 1997 1 sentence 2015They characterize these provisions in the Yeater-Bailey-Lessing chain of title as a habendum clause, that is, a clause in the granting portion of the deed that “defines the extent of the ownership in the thing granted,” the function of which clause “is properly to determine what estate or interest is granted by the deed” and which “may lessen, enlarge, explain, or qualify, but not totally contradict or be repugnant to, [the] estate granted in the premises.” Tazian v. Cline, 686 N.E.2d 95 , 100 n.9 (Ind. 1997) (quoting Blacks’ Law Dictionary 710 (6th ed. 1990)).	1	2015–2015
Finney v. Brandon neutral indctapp · 1922 2 sentences 1956Finney v. Brandon (1922), 78 Ind. App. 450 ; 135 N. E. 10 ; 16 Am. 1956Finney v. Brandon (1922), 78 Ind. App. 450 ; 135 N. E. 10 ; 16 Am.	1	1956–1956
McGahan v. McGahan neutral indctapp · 1926 2 sentences 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 . 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 .	1	1937–1937
Carson v. McCaslin green · 1878 1 sentence 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 .	1	1937–1937
Evans v. Dunlap neutral indctapp · 1905 2 sentences 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 . 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 .	1	1937–1937
Richards v. Richards green indctapp · 1915 2 sentences 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 . 1937Among them are the following: Carson v. McCaslin (1878), 60 Ind. 334 ; Edwards v. Beall (1881), 75 Ind. 401 ; Doren v. Gillum (1893), 136 Ind. 134 , 35 N. E. 1101 ; Evans v. Dunlap (1905), 36 Ind. App. 198 , 75 N. E. 297 ; Adams v. Merrill (1909), 45 Ind. App. 315 , 85 N. E. 114 ; Richards v. Richards (1915), 60 Ind. App. 34 , 110 N. E. 103 ; McGahan v. McGahan (1925), 84 Ind. App. 500 , 151 N. E. 627 .	1	1937–1937
Shoe v. Heckley green indctapp · 1922 2 sentences 1926Appellant has justly criticised our opinion in Shoe v. Heckley (1922), 78 Ind. App. 586 , 134 N. E. 214 , so far as it holds that the habendum clause is contradictory of the granting clause, and therefore void. 1926Appellant has justly criticised our opinion in Shoe v. Heckley (1922), 78 Ind. App. 586 , 134 N. E. 214 , so far as it holds that the habendum clause is contradictory of the granting clause, and therefore void.	1	1926–1926
Gibson v. Land green · 1855 1 sentence 1921In support of this contention appellant cites the following cases: Gibson v. Land (1855), 27 Ala. 117 ; Farmers Bank v. Hooff (1833), 4 Cranch (C.	1	1921–1921
Sumner v. Darnell neutral ind · 1891 1 sentence 1912The deed construed in the first ease, after reciting that the conveyance was made upon the consideration of the permanent location and construction of the depot of the grantee railway company upon the lots described, provided in the habendum clause as follows: “To have and to hold the premises aforesaid, with the appurtenances, to said party of the second part for the purposes aforesaid.” This ease was cited in the case of Sumner v. Darnell, supra, in which, referring to the language just quoted, the court said: “The statement of the use and condition was much stronger than is contained in the	1	1912–1912
Cloos v. Cloos neutral nysupct · 1890 1 sentence 1893In Cloos v. Cloos, 55 Hun, 450 , the deed in question conveyed land to the husband and wife, and the habendum clause, as in this deed here involved, contained the limitation to the grantees “as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common.” The court said: “ It seems very clearly to have been the intention of the pai’ties to create a joint tenancy.	1	1893–1893

Where else courts name it

TX 125 (1893–2026) OK 52 (1919–2023) OH 36 (1921–2024) CA 31 (1860–2021) AL 31 (1883–2018) PA 28 (1915–2025) NY 27 (1852–2015) GA 23 (1899–2015) KY 23 (1895–2023) KS 23 (1899–2021) NC 21 (1908–2010) IL 19 (1899–1987) TN 19 (1921–2024) MD 17 (1910–2009) MO 16 (1883–2024) IN 15 (1893–2023) AR 13 (1915–1975) WV 11 (1896–2016) WA 10 (1915–2007) VT 8 (1865–2026) SC 8 (1907–2006) CO 7 (1904–2021) MT 7 (1926–2008) MI 7 (1897–2014) ND 7 (1977–2024) LA 6 (1938–2012) CT 6 (1895–2019) NJ 5 (1845–1989) MA 5 (1935–1992) NE 5 (1958–1993) OR 5 (1905–2021) NM 4 (1931–2026) ME 4 (1960–2012) IA 4 (1877–2003) WI 4 (1902–1945) WY 3 (1981–1994) UT 3 (1999–2012) VA 2 (1913–1969) HI 2 (1910–2018) DE 2 (1949–1982)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check