Case ID: mass_27/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "But per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hilliard M. Sowle versus John H. Sowle.
    Where a demandant derived his title from the deed of a guardian of two minors, who in the letter of guardianship were called et Phebe Vose Sowle and Mary Jeffers Sowle, children of N. S.” and in the guardian’s petition for a license to sell, the license and deed, they were called t( Phebe Sowle and Polly Sowle, daughters of N. S. and granddaughters of N. S.,” it was held, that the identity of the wards was apparent on the face of these documents; but that if there was any question of their identity, it was a question of fact for the jury, in a deed by a guardian under a license of court, it is unnecessary to state the reason for granting the license and making the sale.
    A deed of<c all the ward’s share and interest” in certain land, will pass both a present estate and a reversionary interest belonging to the ward in the land described.
    Writ of entry. Nathaniel Sowle died intestate, seised of the demanded premises, and upon his death a part of the same was set off to his widow, since deceased, as her dower. The widow, as guardian of two minor children of the intestate, applied to this Court for a license to 'sell their shares in the land, representing that it was in a situation in which it yielded them no profit, and that it would be for their benefit that their interest therein should he sold, and the proceeds thereof put out at interest. A license was granted accordingly, and the land was sold. In the letter of guardianship the minors were called “ Mary Jeffers Sowle and Phebe Vose Sowle, children of Nathaniel Sowle,” but in the petition of the guardian for a license, and in the license, and also in the deed made in pursuance of it, she was styled “ guardian of Phebe Sowle and Polly Sowle, daughters of Nathaniel Sowle and granddaughters of Nathaniel Sowle.” The deed of the guardian to the purchaser recites, that she “ was licensed to make sale of the whole of the said minors’ shares and interest ” in the land, and it conveys to the purchaser, his heirs and assigns, “ all the aforesaid minors’ shares and interest in the aforesaid described premises.” The deed contains the covenants usually inserted in deeds by guardians, and also a covenant that the premises are free of all incumbrances.
    The demandant claimed under this deed.
    
      Oct. 30Z6,
    The tenant objected that it did not appear that the grantor as the guardian of Mary Jeffers Sowle, was ever licensed to make sale of the estate of Mary Jeffers Sowle, or that that estate passed by such deed.
    But it was held, that the wards being described in the petition, license and deed, as the daughters of Nathaniel Sowle and the granddaughters of Nathaniel Sowle, their identity sufficiently appeared ; besides, if a serious question of their identity existed, it was a question of fact for the jury.
    The tenant further objected, that the reason for granting the license and making the sale, showing the case to be within some of the provisions of the statutes authorizing courts to grant license for the sale of the real estate of minors, ought to appear on the face of the guardian’s deed.
    
      Coffin, for the tenant.
    A. Bassett, for the demandant.
   But per Curiam.

The reason for granting the license is to be determined upon by the court by which the licence is granted, and is there a matter of record, and need not be stated in the deed.

The tenant further bhjected, that the deed was uncertain as to the interest intended to be conveyed ; and that it did not intend to pass land which was incumbered by the dower.

But per Curiam. The terms “ all (he aforesaid minors’ shares and interest in the aforesaid described premises,” embrace as well the reversion as the estate in possession.