French v. Williams

Citations

• 82 Va. 462
• 4 S.E. 591
• 1886 Va. LEXIS 59

Syllabus

<p>1. Deeds—Construction—Ambiguity—Parol evidence.—Parol evidence is not admissible to vary, contradict, add to, or explain a written instrument; but in case of equivocal written instruments the circumstances under which they were made or facts collateral thereto may be admitted to show the intention of the parties. Crawford v. Jarrett, 2 Leigh, 630.</p> <p>2. Ways—Appurtenant—In gross—Presumptions.—A way is never presumed to be in gross when it can be construed to be appurtenant to land; and parties are presumed to contract in reference to the condition of property at the time of the sale.</p> <p>3. Idem—Case at bar.—M., in his lifetime, owned a tract of land over which from east back street of a town and across to the back mill road, was a roadway fenced on both sides, both termini being on said tract. He conveyed part to F., which part the roadway traversed as well as the part retained. The deed did not recite that he owned the whole tract, nor state that he retained the balance, but says: “The right of way, as used now and heretofore, from east back street of said town leading by the old stone house to the back mill road, is reserved to M., his heirs and assigns.” After M.’s death, the part retained by him was conveyed to W. F. contended that the roadway reserved by M. was in gross, and did not pass to W. with the land conveyed to him. W. contended that the roadway was appurtenant to the land retained by M. and passed with it to himself.</p> <p>Held:</p> <p>The right of way reserved through the land conveyed to F. was created by the reservation, and was appurtenant to the land retained, and passed with it to W., and that it was as it was at (and had been used theretofore) the date of the deed to F.,- and that parol evidence was admissible to show how that was.</p>