Drinkwater v. Hollar

Action to Quiet Title—Pleading—Answer—Delivery or Deed—Allegation Deemed Controverted.—In an action to quiet title, where the answer sets up a deed from plaintiff to defendant, and alleged the delivery of the deed by plaintiff, the allegation is deemed to be controverted by the plaintiff, and he may disprove the delivery of the deed.

Id.—Proposed Exchange of Land for Stock—Deposit of Deed Pending Investigation—Unauthorized Delivery.—Where there was a proposed exchange of plaintiff’s land for defendant’s railroad stock, and plaintiff delivered an acknowledged deed to brokers, who were the mutual agents of both parties, with directions to hold possession of it, until plaintiff should investigate the value of the stock, and until the exchange should be completed, and the deed ■was delivered to defendant in violation of plaintiff’s directions, it passed no title to defendant.

Id.—Consent op Grantor Essential to Delivery.—In a legal sense, there can be no delivery of a deed without the consent of the grantor. The intention of the grantor, rather than the mode of executing the intention, is the crucial point. Delivery is not complete until the grantor has voluntarily surrendered all control over the deed.

Id.—Effect of Possession of Deed—Evidence not Conclusive.— While possession of the deed by the grantee named therein is prima facie evidence of delivery, it is not conclusive, and may be controverted by extrinsic evidence showing that it was never delivered to him by the grantor, or with his consent.

Id.—Proof and Finding upon Issue as to Delivery—Fraud—Breach of Trust or Rescission not Involved.—In the action to quiet title, where the issue raised by the answer was one of delivery by plaintiff of the deed under which defendant claims title from plaintiff, and the nondelivery of the deed was proved by plaintiff, and found by the court, no question of fraud, or of breach of trust, or of rescission is involved in the case. The act of the brokers in turning over the deed to defendant, contrary to the expressed wishes of the plaintiff, was as ineffectual to pass title as if the deed had been forged or stolen.