Goosey v. Goosey

Citations

• 48 Miss. 210

Syllabus

<p>1. Contracts — construction.—It is a cardinal rule, in the construction of written instruments, to give the words their ordinary and grammatical meaning, and then gather from the entire instrument the intent of the parties.</p> <p>2. Same. — The whole instrument must be considered in determining the meaning of its separate parts, so that, if practicable, harmony and congruity may be attained, ex antecedentibus et eonsequentibus.</p> <p>3. Same — deeds.—The rule, that if there be earlier clauses in a deed repugnant to later clauses, the later shall prevail, does not apply where the inconsistent clauses can be made to harmonize with the general purpose of the parties as derived from the whole instrument.</p> <p>4. Case at bar. — Two deeds in trust conveyed from Lambden and others to Richards, trustee, the property in controversy for the use Elizabeth Goosey, wife of Peter C. Goosey, for-life, and remainder to her issue, who should survive her in case she should die before said husband. A subsequent clause confers power on her to dispose of the property by will in case she should die before him. It appears from recitals in the deeds that said Elizabeth had been of great assistance to the parties grantor in antecedent matters therein referred to, and that they therefore desired to confer upon her, for the use of herself and her children, a beneficial interest in the estate thus conveyed. Held, that she had the power, by the deeds, to either dispose of the remainder by will, or by making no will, allow it to go, at her death, to her children; and that, she having chose to exert her power of disposal by will, such disposition was valid as against the children, their rights as contingent remaindermen having been thereby defeated.</p>