Riggin v. Love

Citations

• 72 Ill. 553

Syllabus

<p>1. Deed—of the habendum clause. The habendum clause in a deed can not perform the office of divesting the estate already vested by the deed, and is void if it is repugnant to the estate granted.</p> <p>2. But where no estate is mentioned in the granting clause, then the habendum becomes efficient to declare the intention, and it will rebut any implication which would otherwise arise from the omission in this respect in the preceding clause.</p> <p>8. Where the granting clause in a deed merely describes the property, and does not define the nature or character of the estate granted, and is not followed by language assuming to supply what is thus omitted, it results, by legal implication under tire statute relating to Conveyances, that the estate conveyed is a fee; but where the habendum describes what estate is conveyed, it does not contradict the language of the granting clause, but simply supplies what is omitted therefrom, and removes all necessity for resorting to implication to ascertain the intention of the parties.</p> <p>4. Same—what character of estate passes. A. deed whereby certain land is granted to one without defining the estate, but in the habendum clause the estate is limited to her during her natural life; with a remainder to her husband, naming him, and in case of his death before the death of his wife, then to his heirs at law, creates a life estate in the wife, with remainder in the husband in fee simple absolute.</p> <p>5. Tenancy by the entirety—arises only when deed is to husband and wife jointly. Where land is conveyed to a wife for life with remainder to her husband, and, in case of his not surviving her, to his heirs, the wife can not, on the husband’s death, take the whole by right of survivorship, as in the cases of Mariner v. Saunders, 5 G-ilm. 124, Lux v. Hoff, 47 Ill. 425, and Strawn v. Straion, 50 Ill. 33, for the reason that those cases only apply where the fee has vested in the husband and wife jointly.</p>