Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-10-19
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
:, Which are Of Interes! to
: Our People.
DIGESTED BY ". B. MARTIN.
dExclu.ively for virEinian-Pilot,

. = MINERAL DEH. CO. v. JAMES.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
September Ia. 1889.
AN INSTRUMENT WILL BE HELD
TO BE A CONVEYANCE OR ONLY
AN AGREEMENT TO CONVEY AC-
CoRDING TO IT'S INTENT.
IN THIS CASE THE INSTRUMENT
WAS AN EXECUTORY AGREE
MDNT WHICH WAS CARRIED
OUT BY A SUBSEQUENT DEED.
The question decided will appear from
the opinion Of the court.
The Court says.
The determination of the matter In
controversy in this case may be said
to depend mainly upon the nature of
the instrument of April is, 1882. If 1t
be not a deed of conveyance but an
executory contract. which was fulfilled
by the deed of November T. 1883, there
Is no error in the decree of the Circuit
Court.
The instrument referred to has many
of the characteristics of deed of con-
veyance. 1t begins with the words:
This indenture" 1t also contains
the operative words Of conveyance.
In derogation of these characteristics
Of conveyance 1t specifies that las to
tH'o llO VIII. tract No.
% the said Mills and wife give q special
warranty deed. but to all the other
tracts named q general warranty deed
is to be made"
1t is n rule Of construction that,
though a deed may in one part use tho
formal and apt words or Il conveyance,
yet from other parts OF the instrument
taken and compared together. 1t APP
pears a mere agreement for IL convey
ance was all that was intended. the in
tent shall prevail, for the intent and
not the words. is the essence OF every
aGreemcnt. Considering the whole of
tho instrument of April IS, 1882. and
applying the recognized rule OF instruc-
lion. am OF opinion that 1t was only
intended as an agreement for the sale
or certain lands and not IL deed of con-
Neyance. The words "but 10 all the
other tracts named a general warranty
deed Is to be made" plainly manifest
mat the parties contemplated that n
future conveyance was to be made The
instrument OF April is, 1882, affords
olher evidence, especially when consid-
cred with the deed of November 7. 1889.
winch tends to support this view.
IL thus appears that in the instru-
ment Of April is, 1882, the description
OF the lands is in very general terms
and the quantity OF each tract not ac-
curateiy stated. but merely said to con-
tam ABOUT so many acres. In the deed
OF November Z, 1883, these same lands
are fully described by metes and
bounds and the acreage OF each accu-
rate1y given.
The original instrument Is not in ev-
idence, but It appears that though re-
corded, 1t was not acknowledged as Is
REQUIRED of deeds and conveyances, but
was simply witnessed as to Mills.
though not as to his wife; while the
deed of November Z, 1889, recites the
payment or the purchase money, was
duly acknowledged by the grantors for
admission to record, and recorded.
The subsequent conveyances, under
which the appellant claims title to the
lands In controversy, also tend to con-
firm the construction that the deed OF
April is. 1882, was only intended as
an agreement of sale and not a. deed
ofSconveyancc.
am OF opinion for the foregoing
reasons. that there is no error in the
decree Of the Circuit Court. and the
same must be affirmed.