## Facts

- A dispute arose over title to a 189-acre tract in Matagorda County, Texas, formerly owned by Edward Strawbridge.
- Edward married Ethel Strawbridge in 1935; they had no children. Edward’s parents and siblings predeceased him, leaving heirs only through descendants of two sisters.
- In 1928, Edward executed a will in Wisconsin containing a general revocation clause.
- In 1940, Edward executed a second will in Florida that referred to the 1928 will and revoked it except as to Wisconsin property.
- On October 20, 1941, Edward signed a written instrument naming himself as grantor and Ethel as grantee, reciting $1 consideration, describing the Texas tract, and stating in the habendum clause “to have and to hold” the land to Ethel “her heirs or assigns forever,” but lacking a conventional granting clause.
- Edward died in 1943. Ethel claimed ownership of the Texas land under the 1941 instrument and, alternatively, by statutes of limitation.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1940 will revoked the 1928 will as to the Texas property, leaving Edward intestate regarding the Texas tract.
2. Whether the October 20, 1941 instrument constituted a valid deed conveying fee simple title despite lacking a formal granting clause.
3. Whether the trial court erred by submitting the case solely on the ten-year limitations theory in light of the operative instruments.

## Decision

- The appellate court concluded the 1940 will revoked the 1928 will except as to Wisconsin property, leaving Edward intestate as to the Texas land.
- The court held the 1941 instrument was a valid deed that conveyed the Texas tract to Ethel in fee simple, even though it did not conform to customary statutory form and lacked a traditional granting clause.
- The court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings because the case was tried and submitted to the jury under an incorrect view of the legal effect of the wills and the 1941 instrument.

## Legal Principles

- A later will that revokes an earlier will except as to specified property revokes the earlier will as to all other property; property not disposed of by a valid will passes by intestacy.
- A conveyancing instrument may operate as a deed even without a formal granting clause if, reading the instrument as a whole, it identifies the grantor, grantee, and land and includes language showing an intent to convey present title (including operative words located in the habendum clause).
- In determining the effect of wills and conveyances, courts look to the intent manifested by the entire instrument rather than rigid compliance with customary form.

## Conclusion

The court held Edward died intestate as to the Texas tract because the 1940 will revoked the earlier will except for Wisconsin property, and it further held the 1941 writing effectively conveyed the Texas land to Ethel despite the absence of a traditional granting clause; the judgment was reversed and remanded due to trial submission errors based on a mistaken view of title.


Harris v. Strawbridge, 330 S.W.2d 911 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1959)