59 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1889–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Slaten v. Loydgreen2 sentences2018Hubbard cites Slaten v. Loyd , 282 Ala. 485 , 487-88, 213 So.2d 219 , 220-21 (1968), for the proposition that "the granting clause in a deed determines the interest conveyed, and unless there is repugnancy, obscurity or ambiguity in that clause, it prevails over introductory statements or recitals in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory or repugnant to it." Hubbard also cites Rowell v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad , 248 Ala. 463 , 28 So.2d 209 (1946), and Moss v. Williams , 822 So.2d 392 , 398-99 (Ala. 2001), in support of his assertion that the langu 2018Hubbard cites Slaten v. Loyd , 282 Ala. 485 , 487-88, 213 So.2d 219 , 220-21 (1968), for the proposition that "the granting clause in a deed determines the interest conveyed, and unless there is repugnancy, obscurity or ambiguity in that clause, it prevails over introductory statements or recitals in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory or repugnant to it." Hubbard also cites Rowell v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad , 248 Ala. 463 , 28 So.2d 209 (1946), and Moss v. Williams , 822 So.2d 392 , 398-99 (Ala. 2001), in support of his assertion that the langu | 3 | 4 |
Hardee v. Hardeegreen2 sentences1975This Court said: “Citing such cases as Henry v. White, 257 Ala. 549 , 60 So.2d 149 ; Hardee v. Hardee, 265 Ala. 669 , 93 So.2d 127 and Section 14, Title 47, Code of 1940, the court held that where there is an inconsistency between the granting clause containing words of inheritance and statements in the habendum or clauses subsequent to the granting clause, the granting clause in the deed will prevail and the clause containing the reservation of mineral rights will be considered void. 1975This Court said: “Citing such cases as Henry v. White, 257 Ala. 549 , 60 So.2d 149 ; Hardee v. Hardee, 265 Ala. 669 , 93 So.2d 127 and Section 14, Title 47, Code of 1940, the court held that where there is an inconsistency between the granting clause containing words of inheritance and statements in the habendum or clauses subsequent to the granting clause, the granting clause in the deed will prevail and the clause containing the reservation of mineral rights will be considered void. | 2 | 3 |
Webb v. Webb's Heirsgreen2 sentences1922A. (N. S.) 719: “The granting clause in a deed determines the interest conveyed, and that, unless there be repugnancy, obscurity or ambjguity in that clause, it prevails over introductory statements or recitals in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory of or repugnant to it.” These Justices hold this is the correct rule of interpretation to be applied to this deed, which they claim is supported by the following authorities in this state: Webb v. Webb, 29 Ala. 588 ; Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312 , 82 South. 668 ; Head v. Hunnicutt, 172 Ala. 48 , 55 S 1920That case does, however, recognize the well-established rule— elaborately stated in Dickson v. Van Hoose, supra, and repeated in Head v. Hunnicutt, 172 Ala. 48 , 55 South. 161 , and early affirmed in Webb v. Webb, 29 Ala. 588 — that the granting clause shall prevail over the habendum in cases of repugnancy. | 1 | 12 |
Henry v. Whitegreen2 sentences1982This Court in Willis v. James , 287 Ala. 653 , 659 , 254 So.2d 717 , 722 (1971), quoted Henry v. White , 257 Ala. 549 , 552 , 60 So.2d 149 , 152-53 (1952), which stated: "If the granting clause does not expressly designate the estate conveyed, and there is nothing in the other parts of the deed to indicate the estate intended to be conveyed, the provisions of Title 47, § 14, Code 1940, [now § 35-4-2 ] have application. 1982This Court in Willis v. James , 287 Ala. 653 , 659 , 254 So.2d 717 , 722 (1971), quoted Henry v. White , 257 Ala. 549 , 552 , 60 So.2d 149 , 152-53 (1952), which stated: "If the granting clause does not expressly designate the estate conveyed, and there is nothing in the other parts of the deed to indicate the estate intended to be conveyed, the provisions of Title 47, § 14, Code 1940, [now § 35-4-2 ] have application. | 1 | 6 |
Porter v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2010In Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 317-18 , 82 So. 668, 673-74 (1919), the Court cited a federal case explaining why other clauses must yield to the granting clause: “In Dickson v. Wildman, 183 Fed. 398, 403 , 105 C.C.A. 618, 623 [ (1910) ], Judge Shelby said: “ ‘If it were conceded that there was repugnancy between the granting clause on the one side and the preliminary recitals and the habendum on the other, and that the conflict was such that the true intent of the grant- or could not be ascertained, it is manifest that the court must decide which part of the deed shall prevail. 2010In Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 317-18 , 82 So. 668, 673-74 (1919), the Court cited a federal case explaining why other clauses must yield to the granting clause: “In Dickson v. Wildman, 183 Fed. 398, 403 , 105 C.C.A. 618, 623 [ (1910) ], Judge Shelby said: “ ‘If it were conceded that there was repugnancy between the granting clause on the one side and the preliminary recitals and the habendum on the other, and that the conflict was such that the true intent of the grant- or could not be ascertained, it is manifest that the court must decide which part of the deed shall prevail. | 1 | 5 |
Rowell v. Gulf, M. O. R. Co.green2 sentences2018Hubbard cites Slaten v. Loyd , 282 Ala. 485 , 487-88, 213 So.2d 219 , 220-21 (1968), for the proposition that "the granting clause in a deed determines the interest conveyed, and unless there is repugnancy, obscurity or ambiguity in that clause, it prevails over introductory statements or recitals in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory or repugnant to it." Hubbard also cites Rowell v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad , 248 Ala. 463 , 28 So.2d 209 (1946), and Moss v. Williams , 822 So.2d 392 , 398-99 (Ala. 2001), in support of his assertion that the langu 2018Hubbard cites Slaten v. Loyd , 282 Ala. 485 , 487-88, 213 So.2d 219 , 220-21 (1968), for the proposition that "the granting clause in a deed determines the interest conveyed, and unless there is repugnancy, obscurity or ambiguity in that clause, it prevails over introductory statements or recitals in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory or repugnant to it." Hubbard also cites Rowell v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad , 248 Ala. 463 , 28 So.2d 209 (1946), and Moss v. Williams , 822 So.2d 392 , 398-99 (Ala. 2001), in support of his assertion that the langu | 1 | 3 |
Hacker v. Carlislegreen2 sentences2010The trial court also relied on Hacker v. Carlisle, 388 So.2d 947 (Ala.1980), in which this Court held that the language in the deed, when viewed as a whole, coupled with the parties’ conduct after the conveyance, indicated that the estate conveyed was in fee simple. 2010In Hacker , this Court discussed deeds in three prior cases, noting that in those deeds the language clearly and expressly defined a life estate with the “telltale language of ‘for his life’ or ‘at his death,’ ” 388 So.2d at 951 , whereas the handwritten language in the deed at issue in Hacker did not clearly convey a life estate. | 1 | 2 |
Dickson v. Wildmangreen2 sentences2010In Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 317-18 , 82 So. 668, 673-74 (1919), the Court cited a federal case explaining why other clauses must yield to the granting clause: “In Dickson v. Wildman, 183 Fed. 398, 403 , 105 C.C.A. 618, 623 [ (1910) ], Judge Shelby said: “ ‘If it were conceded that there was repugnancy between the granting clause on the one side and the preliminary recitals and the habendum on the other, and that the conflict was such that the true intent of the grant- or could not be ascertained, it is manifest that the court must decide which part of the deed shall prevail. 2010In Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312, 317-18 , 82 So. 668, 673-74 (1919), the Court cited a federal case explaining why other clauses must yield to the granting clause: “In Dickson v. Wildman, 183 Fed. 398, 403 , 105 C.C.A. 618, 623 [ (1910) ], Judge Shelby said: “ ‘If it were conceded that there was repugnancy between the granting clause on the one side and the preliminary recitals and the habendum on the other, and that the conflict was such that the true intent of the grant- or could not be ascertained, it is manifest that the court must decide which part of the deed shall prevail. | 1 | 2 |
Carter v. Doe ex dem. Chaudrongreen2 sentences1983Carter v. Chaudron , 21 Ala. 72 , 89 , 90 ; Hitt Lbr. 1922Carter v. Chaudron, 21 Ala. 72, 89, 90 ; Hitt Lbr. | 1 | 2 |
| Windham v. Hendersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watkins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watkins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watkins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Watkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Watkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of New York v. Eastway Construction Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Arkansas v. Pickensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Encalade v. Louisianagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bank of Gadsden v. Dixie Heating & Cooling Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Summerlin v. Bowdengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Head v. Hunnicutt
green
2 sentences1961Petty v. Boothe, 19 Ala. 633 ; McCombs v. Stephenson, 154 Ala. 109 , 44 So. 867 ; Head v. Hunnicutt, 172 Ala. 48 , 55 So. 161 ; Hardee v. Hardee, supra. Also, the granting clause in deed determines interest conveyed and when not obscure or ambiguous it prevails over introductory statements or recitals. 1961Petty v. Boothe, 19 Ala. 633 ; McCombs v. Stephenson, 154 Ala. 109 , 44 So. 867 ; Head v. Hunnicutt, 172 Ala. 48 , 55 So. 161 ; Hardee v. Hardee, supra. Also, the granting clause in deed determines interest conveyed and when not obscure or ambiguous it prevails over introductory statements or recitals. | 11 | 1913–1972 |
Graves v. Wheeler
neutral
2 sentences1989Although the majority attempts to distinguish Graves v. Wheeler, 180 Ala. 412 , 61 So. 341 (1912), on the ground that “in Graves , the grantor conveyed a present interest in the granting clause to his wife for life with the remainder to the grantor’s children upon her death,” the clauses of that deed are substantially similar to those in this case. 1989Although the majority attempts to distinguish Graves v. Wheeler, 180 Ala. 412 , 61 So. 341 (1912), on the ground that “in Graves , the grantor conveyed a present interest in the granting clause to his wife for life with the remainder to the grantor’s children upon her death,” the clauses of that deed are substantially similar to those in this case. | 10 | 1918–1989 |
Dickson v. Van Hoose
green
2 sentences1968Wright v. Smith, 257 Ala. 665 , 60 So.2d 688 ; Patterson v. First National Bank of Mobile, 261 Ala. 601 , 75 So.2d 471 ; Hanners v. Hanners, 262 Ala. 143 , 77 So.2d 484 ; Johnson v. Harrison, 272 Ala. 210 , 130 So.2d 35 ; Dickson v. Van Hoose, 157 Ala. 459 , 47 So. 718 , 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 719. 1968Wright v. Smith, 257 Ala. 665 , 60 So.2d 688 ; Patterson v. First National Bank of Mobile, 261 Ala. 601 , 75 So.2d 471 ; Hanners v. Hanners, 262 Ala. 143 , 77 So.2d 484 ; Johnson v. Harrison, 272 Ala. 210 , 130 So.2d 35 ; Dickson v. Van Hoose, 157 Ala. 459 , 47 So. 718 , 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 719. | 6 | 1918–1968 |
Holmes v. Compton
neutral
2 sentences2018In Holmes v. Compton , 273 Ala. 554 , 555, 142 So.2d 697 , 698 (1962), our supreme court considered a deed in which *1132 the granting clause, like in the present case, indicated that the owner did thereby " 'grant, bargain, sell and convey' " to the grantees, " 'their heirs and assigns, the following described real estate,' " which was followed by a description of property and a statement that " '[t]he grantor herein reserves to her self and her heirs one half of the oil and all minerals that may be discovered in said land.' " Our supreme court determined, in pertinent part: "[T]he [lower] co 2018In Holmes v. Compton , 273 Ala. 554 , 555, 142 So.2d 697 , 698 (1962), our supreme court considered a deed in which *1132 the granting clause, like in the present case, indicated that the owner did thereby " 'grant, bargain, sell and convey' " to the grantees, " 'their heirs and assigns, the following described real estate,' " which was followed by a description of property and a statement that " '[t]he grantor herein reserves to her self and her heirs one half of the oil and all minerals that may be discovered in said land.' " Our supreme court determined, in pertinent part: "[T]he [lower] co | 5 | 1973–2018 |
Wright v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1972Hardee v. Hardee, su pra; Henry v. White, supra; Wright v. Smith, 257 Ala. 665 , 60 So.2d 688 ; Willis v. James et al., supra; Graves v. Wheeler, supra. In Hardee v. Hardee, supra, we overruled the holding in Green et al. v. Jones et al., 257 Ala. 683 , 60 So.2d 857 , to the effect that the granting clause in the deed under consideration in that case conveyed a fee simple estate, saying: “The granting clause in the deed involved in Green v. Jones, supra, did not contain words of inheritance or other words sufficient to show the granting of any certain or specific estate. 1972Hardee v. Hardee, su pra; Henry v. White, supra; Wright v. Smith, 257 Ala. 665 , 60 So.2d 688 ; Willis v. James et al., supra; Graves v. Wheeler, supra. In Hardee v. Hardee, supra, we overruled the holding in Green et al. v. Jones et al., 257 Ala. 683 , 60 So.2d 857 , to the effect that the granting clause in the deed under consideration in that case conveyed a fee simple estate, saying: “The granting clause in the deed involved in Green v. Jones, supra, did not contain words of inheritance or other words sufficient to show the granting of any certain or specific estate. | 5 | 1955–1975 |
Hill v. Gray
neutral
2 sentences1972Therefore, when the granting clause provides for a certain or specific estate, and the character or nature of said estate is changed or lessened by some interlocutory clause, or by the habendum, there would be a conflict or repugnancy, and the granting clause should prevail. “ ‘Where an estate in fee simple is granted to a person, by proper and sufficient words, a clause in the deed which is in restraint of alienation is void and will be rejected.’ Hill v. Gray, 160 Ala. 273 , 49 So. 676 .” Several cases which hold to like effect are cited in Henry v. White, 257 Ala. 549 , 60 So.2d 149 , which 1956Webb v. Webb’s Heirs, 29 Ala. 588 ; Dickson v. Van Hoose, 157 Ala. 459 , 47 So. 718 , 19 L.R.A., N.S., 719; Hill v. Gray, 160 Ala. 273 , 49 So. 676 ; Head v. Hunnicutt, 172 Ala. 48 , 55 So. 161 ; Graves v. Wheeler, 180 Ala. 412 , 61 So. 341 ; Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312 , 82 So. 668 ; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 Ala. 674 , 95 So. 180 ; Gargis v. Kennemer, 216 Ala. 494 , 133 So. 620 ; King v. King, 242 Ala. 53 , 4 So.2d 740 ; Rowell v. Gulf, M. & O. | 5 | 1913–1972 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences1972Therefore, when the granting clause provides for a certain or specific estate, and the character or nature of said estate is changed or lessened by some interlocutory clause, or by the habendum, there would be a conflict or repugnancy, and the granting clause should prevail. “ ‘Where an estate in fee simple is granted to a person, by proper and sufficient words, a clause in the deed which is in restraint of alienation is void and will be rejected.’ Hill v. Gray, 160 Ala. 273 , 49 So. 676 .” Several cases which hold to like effect are cited in Henry v. White, 257 Ala. 549 , 60 So.2d 149 , which 1956Webb v. Webb’s Heirs, 29 Ala. 588 ; Dickson v. Van Hoose, 157 Ala. 459 , 47 So. 718 , 19 L.R.A., N.S., 719; Hill v. Gray, 160 Ala. 273 , 49 So. 676 ; Head v. Hunnicutt, 172 Ala. 48 , 55 So. 161 ; Graves v. Wheeler, 180 Ala. 412 , 61 So. 341 ; Porter v. Henderson, 203 Ala. 312 , 82 So. 668 ; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 Ala. 674 , 95 So. 180 ; Gargis v. Kennemer, 216 Ala. 494 , 133 So. 620 ; King v. King, 242 Ala. 53 , 4 So.2d 740 ; Rowell v. Gulf, M. & O. | 5 | 1913–1972 |
Green v. Jones
neutral
2 sentences1972Hardee v. Hardee, su pra; Henry v. White, supra; Wright v. Smith, 257 Ala. 665 , 60 So.2d 688 ; Willis v. James et al., supra; Graves v. Wheeler, supra. In Hardee v. Hardee, supra, we overruled the holding in Green et al. v. Jones et al., 257 Ala. 683 , 60 So.2d 857 , to the effect that the granting clause in the deed under consideration in that case conveyed a fee simple estate, saying: “The granting clause in the deed involved in Green v. Jones, supra, did not contain words of inheritance or other words sufficient to show the granting of any certain or specific estate. 1972Hardee v. Hardee, su pra; Henry v. White, supra; Wright v. Smith, 257 Ala. 665 , 60 So.2d 688 ; Willis v. James et al., supra; Graves v. Wheeler, supra. In Hardee v. Hardee, supra, we overruled the holding in Green et al. v. Jones et al., 257 Ala. 683 , 60 So.2d 857 , to the effect that the granting clause in the deed under consideration in that case conveyed a fee simple estate, saying: “The granting clause in the deed involved in Green v. Jones, supra, did not contain words of inheritance or other words sufficient to show the granting of any certain or specific estate. | 5 | 1953–1972 |
Petty v. Boothe
green
2 sentences1961Petty v. Boothe, 19 Ala. 633 ; McCombs v. Stephenson, 154 Ala. 109 , 44 So. 867 ; Head v. Hunnicutt, 172 Ala. 48 , 55 So. 161 ; Hardee v. Hardee, supra. Also, the granting clause in deed determines interest conveyed and when not obscure or ambiguous it prevails over introductory statements or recitals. 1953“One of the rules in the construction of deeds is that if there be two clauses which are utterly inconsistent with each other, and which cannot be reconciled or made to stand together, the last shall give way to the first, the maxim being ‘the first clause in a deed, and the last in a will shall prevail.’ Petty v. Boothe, supra. The rule has been stated many times in our cases that the granting clause, unless ambiguous or obscure, prevails over introductory recitals, statements in the habendum clause or other clauses in the deed, if they are contradictory or repugnant to the granting clause. * | 4 | 1952–1975 |
McMillan v. Craft
neutral
2 sentences1919Co. v. Hays, 150 Ala. 212, 216 , 43 South. 487 ; Sullivan v. McLaughlin, supra) ; and the granting clause is held to determine the interest intended to be conveyed, and is the primary intention clause, in conveyances, rather than some interpolation thereof (Webb v. Webb’s Heirs, supra; McMillan v. Craft, 135 Ala. 148 , 33 South. 26 ; Dickson v. Wildman, 183 Eed. 398, 404, 105 C. 1908Another is that the granting clause in a deed determines the interest conveyed, and that, unless there be repugnancy, obscurity or ambiguity in that clause, it prevails over introductory statements or recitals in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory of or repugnant to it. —Webb v. Webb’s Heirs, 29 Ala. 588, 606 ; McMillan v. Craft, 135 Ala. 148 , 33 South. 26 ; Gould v. Womack, 2 Ala.. 83; Kershaw's Ex’rs v. Boykin, 1 Brev. | 3 | 1908–2010 |
Rhodes v. State
neutral
2 sentences1981Stratford v Lattimer , 255 Ala. 201 , 50 So.2d 420 (1951); Gentle v Frederick , 234 Ala. 184 , 174 So. 606 (1937) The rule urged by plaintiffs, which would give prevailing effect to the granting clause has application only where a granting clause is sought to be contradicted by subsequent words of doubtful import. 1953Graves v. Wheeler, supra. The conclusions reached in Deramus v. Deramus, 204 Ala. 144 , 85 So. 397, 398 ; Ward v. Torian, 216 Ala. 288 , 112 So. 815 ; Gentle v. Frederick, 234 Ala. 184 , 174 So. 606 , are in accord with this principle. | 3 | 1952–1981 |
Gentle v. Frederick
neutral
2 sentences1981Stratford v Lattimer , 255 Ala. 201 , 50 So.2d 420 (1951); Gentle v Frederick , 234 Ala. 184 , 174 So. 606 (1937) The rule urged by plaintiffs, which would give prevailing effect to the granting clause has application only where a granting clause is sought to be contradicted by subsequent words of doubtful import. 1953Graves v. Wheeler, supra. The conclusions reached in Deramus v. Deramus, 204 Ala. 144 , 85 So. 397, 398 ; Ward v. Torian, 216 Ala. 288 , 112 So. 815 ; Gentle v. Frederick, 234 Ala. 184 , 174 So. 606 , are in accord with this principle. | 3 | 1952–1981 |
Alabama Power Co. v. Atkins
neutral
2 sentences1972That holding in Green v. Jones, supra [ 257 Ala. 683 , 60 So.2d 858 ], cannot be approved or followed. 1953The same argument was made in Green v. Jones, supra [ 257 Ala. 683 , 60 So.2d 858 ], where this court said: “That contention states the applicable rule where there is no irreconcilable conflict between the granting clause and the habendum clause.” Here, I see no escape from an irreconcilable conflict, if the.conclusion of the majority is accepted. | 3 | 1953–1972 |
Moss v. Williams
green
2 sentences2018Hubbard cites Slaten v. Loyd , 282 Ala. 485 , 487-88, 213 So.2d 219 , 220-21 (1968), for the proposition that "the granting clause in a deed determines the interest conveyed, and unless there is repugnancy, obscurity or ambiguity in that clause, it prevails over introductory statements or recitals in conflict therewith, and over the habendum, too, if that clause is contradictory or repugnant to it." Hubbard also cites Rowell v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad , 248 Ala. 463 , 28 So.2d 209 (1946), and Moss v. Williams , 822 So.2d 392 , 398-99 (Ala. 2001), in support of his assertion that the langu 2018Where the granting clause, however, designates no particular estate, any intent to overcome the statutory presumption that the conveyance is of a fee-simple estate 'must of necessity be found in lucid, unambiguous language used to express it, rather than statements merely contradictory or repugnant to that found in [the] granting clause .' Slaten , 282 Ala. at 488 , 213 So.2d at 221 (emphasis added)." 822 So.2d at 397 . | 2 | 2013–2018 |
Hunter v. Patterson
neutral
2 sentences2010And by another court it has been said: ‘It is a rule in the construction of deeds that of two repugnant clauses therein the first shall prevail against the second; and, according to this rule, the meaning of the premises shall not be changed by the words of the habendum as to irreconcilable differences.’ Chamberlain v. Runkle, 28 Ind.App. 599 , 63 N.E. 486 [ (1902) ]; Hunter v. Patterson, 142 Mo. 310 , 44 S.W. 250 [(1898)]; Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill (Md.) 198, 43 Am. 2010And by another court it has been said: ‘It is a rule in the construction of deeds that of two repugnant clauses therein the first shall prevail against the second; and, according to this rule, the meaning of the premises shall not be changed by the words of the habendum as to irreconcilable differences.’ Chamberlain v. Runkle, 28 Ind.App. 599 , 63 N.E. 486 [ (1902) ]; Hunter v. Patterson, 142 Mo. 310 , 44 S.W. 250 [(1898)]; Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill (Md.) 198, 43 Am. | 2 | 1908–2010 |
Chamberlain v. Runkle
green
2 sentences2010And by another court it has been said: ‘It is a rule in the construction of deeds that of two repugnant clauses therein the first shall prevail against the second; and, according to this rule, the meaning of the premises shall not be changed by the words of the habendum as to irreconcilable differences.’ Chamberlain v. Runkle, 28 Ind.App. 599 , 63 N.E. 486 [ (1902) ]; Hunter v. Patterson, 142 Mo. 310 , 44 S.W. 250 [(1898)]; Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill (Md.) 198, 43 Am. 2010And by another court it has been said: ‘It is a rule in the construction of deeds that of two repugnant clauses therein the first shall prevail against the second; and, according to this rule, the meaning of the premises shall not be changed by the words of the habendum as to irreconcilable differences.’ Chamberlain v. Runkle, 28 Ind.App. 599 , 63 N.E. 486 [ (1902) ]; Hunter v. Patterson, 142 Mo. 310 , 44 S.W. 250 [(1898)]; Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill (Md.) 198, 43 Am. | 2 | 1908–2010 |
Ratliffe v. Marrs
green
2 sentences2010It has been said that the ha-bendum must give way, because the granting clause is necessary to make the deed effective, while the habendum clause is not. [Ratliffe ] v. Marrs, 87 Ky. 26 , 7 S.W. 395 , 8 S.W. 876 [ (1888) ]. 2010It has been said that the ha-bendum must give way, because the granting clause is necessary to make the deed effective, while the habendum clause is not. [Ratliffe ] v. Marrs, 87 Ky. 26 , 7 S.W. 395 , 8 S.W. 876 [ (1888) ]. | 2 | 1908–2010 |
Johnson v. Harrison
neutral
2 sentences2001If the granting clauses convey with certainty a fee simple, then the "subsequent words . . . of doubtful import [ e.g ., right of way] . . . cannot be construed as to contradict the preceding words which are certain." Johnson , 272 Ala. at 213 , 130 So.2d at 37 . 2001If the granting clauses convey with certainty a fee simple, then the "subsequent words . . . of doubtful import [ e.g ., right of way] . . . cannot be construed as to contradict the preceding words which are certain." Johnson , 272 Ala. at 213 , 130 So.2d at 37 . | 2 | 1968–2001 |
Hanners v. Hanners
green
2 sentences1989If either or any of the said Johnny Holt Salters, Linda Irving Harbin, or James Comer Salters, who are children of the life tenant shall die without issue, or descendants of issue surviving then the share shall go to the surviv- or or survivors of the life tenant’s said children, Johnny Holt Salters, Linda Irving Harbin, and James Comer Salters, thereby releasing and waiving all rights of homestead and dower.” James contends that the granting clause and the habendum clause conflict and that the granting clause prevails over all other clauses in the event of a conflict, relying on Hanners v. Ha 1989If either or any of the said Johnny Holt Salters, Linda Irving Harbin, or James Comer Salters, who are children of the life tenant shall die without issue, or descendants of issue surviving then the share shall go to the surviv- or or survivors of the life tenant’s said children, Johnny Holt Salters, Linda Irving Harbin, and James Comer Salters, thereby releasing and waiving all rights of homestead and dower.” James contends that the granting clause and the habendum clause conflict and that the granting clause prevails over all other clauses in the event of a conflict, relying on Hanners v. Ha | 2 | 1968–1989 |
Willis v. James
neutral
2 sentences1982This Court in Willis v. James , 287 Ala. 653 , 659 , 254 So.2d 717 , 722 (1971), quoted Henry v. White , 257 Ala. 549 , 552 , 60 So.2d 149 , 152-53 (1952), which stated: "If the granting clause does not expressly designate the estate conveyed, and there is nothing in the other parts of the deed to indicate the estate intended to be conveyed, the provisions of Title 47, § 14, Code 1940, [now § 35-4-2 ] have application. 1982This Court in Willis v. James , 287 Ala. 653 , 659 , 254 So.2d 717 , 722 (1971), quoted Henry v. White , 257 Ala. 549 , 552 , 60 So.2d 149 , 152-53 (1952), which stated: "If the granting clause does not expressly designate the estate conveyed, and there is nothing in the other parts of the deed to indicate the estate intended to be conveyed, the provisions of Title 47, § 14, Code 1940, [now § 35-4-2 ] have application. | 2 | 1972–1982 |
Stratford v. Lattimer
green
2 sentences1981Stratford v Lattimer , 255 Ala. 201 , 50 So.2d 420 (1951); Gentle v Frederick , 234 Ala. 184 , 174 So. 606 (1937) The rule urged by plaintiffs, which would give prevailing effect to the granting clause has application only where a granting clause is sought to be contradicted by subsequent words of doubtful import. 1981Stratford v Lattimer , 255 Ala. 201 , 50 So.2d 420 (1951); Gentle v Frederick , 234 Ala. 184 , 174 So. 606 (1937) The rule urged by plaintiffs, which would give prevailing effect to the granting clause has application only where a granting clause is sought to be contradicted by subsequent words of doubtful import. | 2 | 1952–1981 |
| Perrine v. Leachman neutral | 2 | 1889–1964 |
| Martin v. Wharton neutral | 2 | 1889–1964 |
| McCombs v. Stephenson neutral | 2 | 1915–1961 |
| Reynolds v. Reynolds neutral | 2 | 1952–1956 |
| Gargis v. Kennemer neutral | 2 | 1952–1956 |
| King v. King neutral | 2 | 1952–1956 |
| Ward v. Torian neutral | 2 | 1952–1953 |
| Deramus v. Deramus green | 2 | 1952–1953 |
| Harrison v. Simons green | 2 | 1890–1897 |
| Hammond v. Thompson neutral | 2 | 1890–1897 |
| Wife v. Dargin neutral | 2 | 1890–1897 |
| Barter v. Burton Garland Revocable Trust green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Gould v. Womack green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Evans v. State neutral | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Ex Parte Anonymous green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| In the Matter of Anonymous green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Little v. Hunter neutral | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| United States Steel Corp. v. Hoge green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Sheldon v. Carter neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.