Collins v. Collins

Citations

• 51 Miss. 311

Syllabus

<p>1. Deed oe Trust : Alteration of deed after it is recorded: Interlineation by consent: IIow rights of parties affected by it.</p> <p>C. executed a deed of trust to R., as trustee for EL, to secure a note of $1,800, borrowed money, conveying the only real estate that C. possessed, and wbicb his wife and he occupied as a homestead. The deed was dated February 13,1873, and recorded March 3,1873. On the 24th of March, 1873, EL. made to C. a further loan of $300; it was to be temporary, and to be returned in a few days; but O. failed to pay as he promised, and in July or August, by consent of all parties, an attempt was made, by interlineation to secure the $300, in the former deed of trust, and the following words and figures were written in the record of the deed in the clerk’s office, to wit: “Also for one note for $300, due March 24, A. D. 1873.” The deed of trust was executed by C. alone, his wife not joining in it. Held, that the .alteration or interlineation did not create a new contract or a new deed, taking effect from the date of the interlineation. It did not invalidate or change the original deed of trust, or affect the interests of third parties in the property conveyed. It was a mere attempt, by agreement, to add the $300 note to the deed as a security for it also, without any intention to change the force or effect of the original deed of trust, as a security for the $1,800; and as to that sum the deed has the same effect since, that it had before the interlineation or alteration was made.</p> <p>2. Same: Same: Homestead rights of ma/rried women: Case in judgment.</p> <p>At the date of the execution and recording of the deed of trust, February 13,1873, it was not necessary that the wife should join her husband in the conveyance of the homestead, but the subsequent act of April 18, 1873, did render it necessary.</p>