Davis v. Tarwater
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from, Hempstead Circuit Cowrt in Chancery. Hon. John QuilliN, Circuit Judge. On the point that the instrument executed to Tarwater, wasaconveyancempresentí,and nota covenant or bond to convey in future, cited Chiles vs. Candy's hei/rs, 2 Dana 2i / Jackson vs. Bladjet, 16 J. JR. 172/ Jackson vs. Kipelbrack, 10 J. JR. 336/ Fisdale vs. Essex, JBJob. 34/ Baxter vs. Brown, 2 W. Bla. 973/ Jackson vs. Delacroix, 2 Wend. 433. The words used in the deed: “ bargained and sold,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Hempstead Circuit Cowrt in Chancery. Hon. John QuilliN, Circuit Judge. On the point that the instrument executed to Tarwater, wasaconveyancempresentí,and nota covenant or bond to convey in future, cited Chiles vs. Candy's hei/rs, 2 Dana 2i / Jackson vs. Bladjet, 16 J. JR. 172/ Jackson vs. Kipelbrack, 10 J. JR. 336/ Fisdale vs. Essex, JBJob. 34/ Baxter vs. Brown, 2 W. Bla. 973/ Jackson vs. Delacroix, 2 Wend. 433. The words used in the deed: “ bargained and sold, conveyed and confirmed,” do not import a covenant of warranty. The statute, (Digest, 264, s. 1,) merely provides that…
1Opinion of the Court
Hon. S. H. Hemfstead, Special Judge,
delivered the opinion of' the Court.
The first enquiry to be made, is, whether the instrument, executed by Aquilla Davis to George T. Tarwater, on the 19th of January 1839, was a conveyance of the four lots adjoining Spring Hill, or only an agreement to convey; in other words, whether the contract was executed or executory.
The intention, when apparent, and not contrary to any rule of law, will control; because the intent, and not the words, is the* essence of every contract. In the construction of deeds, we are-to consider the entire instrument, and not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Piatt v. VattierSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Jackson v. BlodgetNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Fitzpatrick v. FeatherstoneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Chiles v. Conley's HeirsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1834
- Grantland v. WightSupreme Court of Virginia · 1816
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Herrick v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
- Kilgo v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Hyland v. RoeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Dunham v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Bowden v. SpellmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.