Court Opinion

ID: 6660123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:01:09.44595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:07.661476
License: Public Domain

Sedgwioic, J.,
concurring.
The foregoing opinion was prepared by Judge Root while he was a member of the court, and is now adopted as a correct disposition of the case. The most serious contention in the case is determined by the second paragraph of the syllabus. The general rule is that the consideration expressed in a written instrument may be inquired into, and that it may be shown by parol testimony to be without consideration, although such consideration is recited in the instrument. The adjudicated cases are in conflict and each view is supported by many decisions. We think that the better reasoned decisions hold that the general rule obtains in cases of this kind. If there was a valuable consideration for the deed, the property goes, upon the death of the grantee, to his heirs in general. If the deed Avas in fact a gift from an ancestor of the grantee, the property upon the death of the grantee descends to those who are “of the blood of such ancestor.” When the ancestor makes a gift to his descendant, and recites in the deed of gift that a valuable consideration was paid therefor, this recitation on his part may be for the purpose of controlling the line of descent of the property. We know, however, that in practice this recitation is often made in deeds for other and different purposes, or it may be carelessly made without any purpose whatever. If the conveyance is in fact a gift, and the ancestor desires to qualify the estate conveyed and control the line of descent, he can do so by inserting in the conveyance apt and conclusive words for that purpose. If the ancestor desires to make disposition of his property that shall take effect after his death, or to place limitations, upon the title derived through him, he can accomplish these results through a gift of the property by will, and the laAV favors that method of making such posthumous limitations. It is not usual in practice to qualify the estate conveyed by so uncertain a method as recitations of consideration, and to adopt such methods would lead *697to uncertainties in titles to real estate. We think, therefore, the better reason is in favor of the rule which we have adopted.