Cooper v. Cooper
Citations
- 76 Ill. 57
Syllabus
<p>1. Conveyance—rule of construction. According to the rules of construction of deeds of conveyance, all the language of the grant must be considered and effect given to it, unless it is so repugnant or meaningless that it can not be done; and when that is the case, the repugnant or senseless portion may, in some cases, be rejected as surplusage.</p> <p>2. Same—grant construed. A deed to A and B, husband and wife, contained the following granting clause: “Have granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents do grant, bargain arid sell unto the party of the second part and his assigns, with power to sell the same, during the life of the said A, and to his wife, B, after the death of her husband, A, during her widowhood, and after her death, or, after she ceases to be the widow of said A, to the heirs of A on the body of the said B begotten, certain tracts of land,” etc.: Held, that A took a life estate, with a power to sell and convey the fee, and B a conditional life estate after the death of A, liable to be defeated on her marriage, and that the heirs of A, begotten of the body of B, before or after the grant, took the remainder in fee simple absolute.</p> <p>3. Same—office and effect of the habendum. The habendum clause of a deed of conveyance can not enlarge the estate granted contrary to the terms of the granting clause. Its proper office is, not to give anything, but to limit or define the certainty of the estate in the grantee who should be named in the previous part of the deed.</p> <p>4. Same—deed to husband and wife—tenancy by the entirety—survivorship. Under the legislation of this State giving married women the right to acquire property, and hold the same free from their husband’s control, the reason for the rule which holds that a conveyance to husband and wife makes them tenants by the entirety with right of survivorship, has ceased to exist, and they will, in this State, take and hold as tenants in common.</p> <p>5. Same—deed constnced. A deed for
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Gridley v. GridleyIllinois Supreme Court· 1948-01-22· cited 41×
- Mittel v. KarlIllinois Supreme Court· 1890-05-14· cited 40×
- Duffield v. DuffieldIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-04-22· cited 34×
- Hartwick v. HeberlingIllinois Supreme Court· 1936-10-27· cited 29×
- Doyle v. DoyleIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-04-22· cited 16×
- Harrer v. WallnerIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-09-15· cited 15×
- Kunz v. KurtzCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1899-09-15· cited 11×
- Beasley v. BeasleyIllinois Supreme Court· 1949-09-22· cited 9×
- Whyman v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Colorado· 1917-01-15· cited 9×
- Semper v. CoatesSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1904-07-22· cited 7×
- Myers v. ReedU.S. Circuit Court· 1883-08-08· cited 4×
- Blount v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1924-03-03· cited 3×
- Insurance Co. of North America v. HofingAppellate Court of Illinois· 1888-09-21
- Keller v. BadingAppellate Court of Illinois· 1896-04-27
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.