Shoemake v. Lane

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County denying the claim of appellants to undivided interests in certain real property.

The land was originally owned by B. B. Barnett. On March 14, 1890, he executed a deed of it to his son, F. Joseph Barnett. The instrument recites that “the said party of the first part . . . doth by these presents, give, grant, alien and confirm unto the said party of the second part, and to his heirs, all those certain lots ...” Following is a description of the property and then the

habendum,

clause: “To have and to hold all and singular the said

[458]

premises, together with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, for and during his natural life, and to the issue and heirs of the body of the said party of the second part.” At the time of the execution and delivery of this deed, the grantee had a daughter living, Lela Barnett. The grantor died April 17, 1891. Thereafter the grantee, F. Joseph Barnett, brought an action against his daughter, his brothers and his sisters, claiming title to the property in fee simple. It was eventually held that the deed gave him only a life estate.

(Barnett

v.

Barnett,

104 Cal. 298 [27 Pac. 1049].) It necessarily follows from this decision that the daughter had an estate in remainder.

Lela Barnett never married, and died on March 11, 1909. F. Joseph Barnett never had any other issue. He died March 29, 1928.

. The appellants are the successors in interest of Lela Barnett. The respondents are the legal representatives of B. B. Barnett, the original grantor, his heirs, and successors in interest of his heirs. A single question is presented on this appeal. It is agreed by all parties that under the decision in

Barnett

v.

Barnett, supra,