Grayson v. Holloway

Facts

A.J. Holloway and Manervy Holloway, husband and wife, were elderly and needed someone to care for them. They invited G.P. Holloway and his wife Mae Holloway (Plaintiffs) to come live on their farm and care for them. The elder Holloways made a deed to the seventy acres to “G.P. Holloway to take care of the said A.J. Holloway and Manervy Holloway as long as they live and at their death to pay all funeral and burial expenses, and said deed is to become a warranty deed.” This was the consideration portion of the conveyance. The “habendum” clause was “To have and to hold the same to the said G.P. Holloway and wife Mae Holloway and their heirs and assigns forever.” Thus, there was a conflict between the conveyance portion and the habendum clause. The Plaintiffs in this action are lawful heirs of G.P. Holloway, now deceased, and that Mae Holloway (Defendant), the widow of G.P. Holloway. The Plaintiffs allege that under the deed they own the fee simple title to the land in question su bject to homestead and dower of the Defendant. They requested a partition by sale of the property. The Defendant filed an answer and cross-bill claiming that she is entitled to more than just dower and homestead. She contended that the original deed conveyed fee simple to herself and her late husband G.P. Holloway, as tenants by the entirety, and she survived her husband to take in fee simple. The Defendant charged that she was part of the consideration for the deed from the elder Holloways insofar as she was to perform household chores. The lower court held that the habendum clause was repugnant to the granting clause and that the granting clause conveyed fee simple title to G.P. Holloway alone. The lower court ruled that the granting clause was to prevail over the habendum clause and rendered judgment for the Plaintiffs. Defendant appealed.