Stewart v. Warren
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the CourtGriffin Smith, C. J.
The appeal is from a decree finding* that in the granting clause of a deed the estate conveyed was not limited, but that a limitation in the habendum should be given effect. Appellants deny there was an intent to delimit and seek to invoke the rule of repugnancy, to the end that “forever,” used in the deed’s granting clause, be held to control.
The grant to W. D. Stewart, his heirs and assigns forever, 1 was an undivided half interest in oil, gas, and other minerals pertaining to the land in question. The deed is shown in the second footnote. 2
A printed form was used. In the habendum, as it…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Beasley v. ShinnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
- Maloch v. PryorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gibson v. PickettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
- Carter Oil Company v. WeilSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Weatherly v. PurcellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- Weir v. BrighamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
- Gibson v. PickettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974