Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of Mississippi Volume 123 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 edition. Excerpt: ...deed to take effect as far as regards the handing over of the property at my death." In passing upon that instrument, the court said: "Taking the part of the instrument by which the deed is to take effect, as far as regards the handing over of the property at my death, in connection with the subsequent part, declaring the execution of the deed and placing it among his papers is intended as a-delivery of the property at his death and to take effect at that time, we think that the latter provision must be understood to mean, as to the delivery of the property. should take effect at his death and not that it should not take effect in anyother respect until his death. Wall v. lVall, 30 Miss. 98. The court further said in passing upon that instrument: "It is insisted that other parts of the instrument show clearly that it is intended to be testamentary. The parts mainly relied upon as showing this, is that declaring that the signing, sealing and delivery of this deed and placing the same amongst my papers is intended by me as a delivery of said property at my death, and to take effect at that time. If the legal character of the instrument depended entirely upon this provision, it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion, that it was not intended to take' effect in any respect, until the maker's death. But its character mustbe determined upon a consideration of all of its parts." It will thus be seen that the instrument in the Wall case, supra provided that it should not take effect so far as the handing over of the property is concerned until his death. There is no such provision in the instrument in the case at bar and no provision akin to it, but the stipulation is without limitation that it is to...