Smith v. Fox

*132'WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice

(dissenting) . ‘

I. do not concur in the majority opinion because I believe that it does not correctly state the law and reaches an inequitable result.

The first error is readily apparent in the first .paragraph of the syllabus which states that “the alteration of a deed subsequent to its delivery will not affect its interpretation as to the quantum of the estate thereby, conveyed.” While such statement is not objectionable as an abstract proposition, it certainly has no application to this case since the evidence does not reveal that the alteration of the deed in…