An undelivered deed may not be proved to be a will by extrinsic evidence that it was executed with testamentary intent ; Noble v. Fickes, 230 Ill. 594, 82 N. E. 950, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1203, 12 Ann. Cas. 282. An instru ment using words of conveyance in prcesenti will be considered as an agreement to convey, and not a conveyance, if it is manifest that further conveyance was contemplated; Wil liams v. Paine, 169 U. S. 55, 18 Sup. Ct. 279, 42 L. Ed. 658, cited in Mineral Development Co. v. James, 97 Va. 414, 34 S. E. 37. The question is one of intention ; Phillips v. Swank, 120 Pa. 76, 13 Atl. 712, 6 Am. St. Rep. 691; Jackson v. Moncrief, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 26.
All the terms of a deed should be con strued together ; Lowdermilk Bros. v. Bos tick, 98 N. C. 299, 3 S. E. 844 ; Bradley v. Zehmer, 82 Va. 685 ; St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226, 11 Sup. Ct. 337, 34 L. Ed. 941; and the words therein should be taken mose strongly against the party using them; Doug lass v. Lewis, 131 U. S. 75, 9 Sup. Ct. 634, 33 L. Ed. 53 ; Homer v. Schonfeld, 84 Ala. 313, 4 South. 105 ; where two clauses in a deed are repugnant, the first prevails ; Blair v. Muse, 83 Va. 238, 2 S. E. 31; and if possible a deed should be so construed as to give it effect ; Cleveland v. Sims; 69 Tex. 153, 6 S. W. 634.
"Sells" in a deed does not pass title ; Tay lor v. Burns, 203 U. S. 120, 27 Sup. Ct. 40, 51 L. Ed. 116.
A deed speaks from the time of its de livery, not from its date ; U. S. v. Le Baron,
19 How. (U. S.) 73, 15 L. Ed. 525; District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works, 181 U. S. 454, 21 Sup. Ct. 680, 45 L. Ed. 948 ; and parol evidence may be admitted to show de livery at a date subsequent to that shown on the face of the instrument ; id.
The lex rei sitte governs in the convey ance of lands, both as to the requisites and forms of conveyance. See LEX REI SITE.
Recitals in deeds of payment of the con siderations expressed therein are not proof of such payments as against persons not par ties thereto ; Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 12 Sup. Ct. 239, 35 L. Ed. 1063 ; nor is a consideration always nec essary to the validity of a deed of land ; Baker v. Westcott, 73 Tex. 129, 11 S. W. 157. An alteration in the description of property in a deed cannot be made without re-execu tion, reacknowledgment, and redelivery, after the deed has been delivered and recorded; Moelle v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 21, 13 Sup. Ct. 426, 37 L. Ed. 350.
In the Reading Railroad Company Receiver ship (1895) the court ordered the trustees to execute six original deeds, for convenience in recording, any one of which might be record ed, each to be an original, and all to consti tute one deed.
The grantee in a deed is bound by its covenant, though he does not sign ; Taft v. Taft, 59 Mich. 185, 26 N. W. 426, 60 Am. Rep. 291; 21 Harv. L. Rev. 587.
See DELIVERY; ESCROW ; LOST INSTRUMENT ; ATTESTATION; ALIENATION ; ANCIENT WRIT ING.