Evans v. Edenfield

Gilbert, J,

dissenting. The legal effect of the deed executed by-Morgan to his daughter, Susan Edenfield, is precisely the same as if the word “then” had been omitted in the phrase “and then to the heirs of her bodjr,” wherever these words occur in the deed. The reason is that the word “then” standing alone is too vague, uncertain, and indefinite to have any meaning whatsoever. It is true that in construing, all contracts no word should be treated as redundant, if this reasonably can be avoided. But in the present instance it is impossible to give it any meaning with any reasonable certainty…