[seems to be missing a page?]

and your petitioner further says that before he conveyed said Estate real and personal to said Joseph B. Close in trust as aforesaid, by said deed of at the said 10th day November 1865, to wit on or about the 1st day of September 1864 your Petitioner became sick and disordered and unsound of mind, and as a consequence of said sickness and derangement, unfit and incapable of executing or making any valid legal contract and incapable of executing or delivering said deed of trust, to said Joseph B. Close, or any deed or deeds whatever, and so continued to be sick disordered and unsound of mind and incapable of making any contract, or deed whatever, until on or about the 1st day of July 1868 all of which the said Close [ever?] knew, yet your petitioner says that while he was to sick, disordered and unsound of mind as aforesaid the said Joseph B. Close, and others, by unduly influencing and persuading your petitioner induced him to the Execute and deliver said deed of trust to him the said Joseph B. Close

But your petitioner says that the the said Joseph B. Close though requested, refused to reconvey said estate to your petitioenr, and
still refuses to reconvey the same to your petition, although often requested, and particalularly on the 2nd day of June 1869
When you petitioner caused to be made in all respects in conformity to law, a good and sufficient deed of said Estate
to your petitioner and in tendered the same to said Joseph B. Close to execute to your petitioner which the said Joseph B. Close then and there refused to do and your petitioner further says that Emily K Bailey and Anna K. Bailey both of said Ridgefield claim to have some interest in and of said real and personal estate under said trust deed.

Your petitioner therefore prays this Hon. Court to order and decree that the said Joseph B. Close make and execute and deliver to your petitioenr a good our sufficient deed of all the estate described in said deed of trust from your petitioner to the said Joseph B. Close and to reconvey all said as estate to your petitioner in as full and and ample a manner as in his first and former state or grant such such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and equitable and your Petitioner as is dutybound will ever pray.

Dated at Danbury this 8th day of July 1869

Halcyon G. Bailey

By Mr Wm F. Taylor his Atty.

To the Sheriff of the County of Fairfield or his deputy or either of
the Constables of the Town of Danbury in said County

Greeting

By Authority
of the state of Connecticut you are hereby commanded to summon and notify the Within named Joseph B. Close Emily K. Bailey and Anna K Bailey to appear before the Superior court to be holden at Danbury for there and for the County of Fairfield on the 2nd
Tuesday of August 1869, then and there to show reason if any they have why the prayer of the foregoing petitioner should not be granted, 
Hereof fail not &c
Dated at Danbury the 8th day of July 1869

Theodore McDonald 

Commissioner of the
Superior Court

State of Connecticut Danbury

Fairfield County S.S. July 16th 1869

It appearing to the undersigned that

Joseph B. Close one of the respondents in the foregoing petition resides out of State to wit: in Bergen Point in the State of New Jersey, It is therefore ordered that notice of the forgoing petition be given to the said Joseph B. Close by some proper officer or indifferent  person by depositing in the post office in Danbury aforesaid on or before the 29th day of July 1869 a true and attested copy of the forgoing petition Citation and of this order sealed up and postage paid and directed to the said Joseph B. Close of his place of abode at Bergen Point in the State of New Jury, to the Intent that he may appear and make answer to said petition at the term of the said Court court to which the same is respondent.

Hereof fail not &c
Dated at Denbury the 16th day of
July 1869

Lyman Keeler
County Commissioner

Fairfield County SS. Ridgefield & Danbury July 19th 1869

Then I made service of the within petition citation & summons by leaving a true and attested Copy of the same at the abode of the within named Emily K. Bailey and a like copy at the abode of the within named Anna K. Bailey and on the same day I deposited a like copy in the post office in said Danbury sealed up, postage paid and directed to Joseph Close Bergen Point New Jersey

Attest

Alfred A. Heath
Deputy Sheriff

Fees

37 Miles to serve & Return 3.70
3 copies     9.75
4 endorsements  .50
service        .36
14.75

Halcyon G. Bailey

Joseph B Close & Others

Now the Respondents in court answer and say that the matters and things avered in said petition are untrue and insufficient if true and hereof put themselves on the court for trial

By Averill & Brewster & Beversly

Halcyon G. Bailey
Vs
Joseph B. Close

To the Hon. Superior Court now in session in Danbury in and for Fairfield County

The undersigned having been by said Court at a previous term thereof appointed a committee to find the facts in the above entitled action hereby reports that having been duly sworn I met the petitioner and respondents at the Court House in said Danbury on the 13th day of April 1870, and by adjournment on other subsequent days at said Court House and at Borough Hall in said Danbury, where they were fully heard with their exhibits, evidence, and arguments of Counsel, and on such hearing I do find the following facts:

The petitioner and his wife Emily K. Bailey were married on the 3th day of October 1854 and continued to live together as husband and wife until on or about the 1st day of August 1865 when the said Emily K. Bailey proffered her petition to the Superior Court for said County, praying for a divorce from the said Halcyon G., alimony from his estate, and the custody of their minor child Anna R. Bailey who is still living and of about the age of fifteen years. 

Said petition was legally served upon the said Halcyon G. on the 5th day of August 1865 and a copy thereof is hereto appended marked B After said petition had been served upon the said Halcyon G. it was agreed between him and by wife that their differences should be submitted for settlement to the respondent Joseph B. Close and to Lyman Keeler of said Danbury, who on the 10 day of November 1865, with the said Halcyon G and his wife at the residence of the said Halcyon G. in Ridgefield, It was there agreed between the several parties present that the said Halcyon G should make a conveyance to the respondent Close of the premises & estate described in the deed which is marked A appended to the petition in this action, and there was no other consideration for such conveyance than the agreement mentioned therein and the condition thereof. The parties then proceeded to the office of Nelson L White Esq. in said Danbury, by whom it had been agreed between them that the conveyance from the petition to the said Close should be prepared and thereupon by direction of the petitioner and said Close the said White prepared said conveyance a copy of which is appended to the petition in this return and marked A and in same in then and there freely and voluntarily executed and acknowledged by the petitioner and without the influence or persuasion of any person, and by him then and there on the same day delivered to the said Close, who on the 13th day of November 1865 caused said conveyance to be recorded on the land records of the town of Ridgefield within which said land was situated.
The petitioner at the time of the execution and delivery of said deed to said Close was, and for more than two years prior thereto had been, the owner in fee simple of the premises therein described, and had for about estate therein mentioned and then had full mental capacity to make and execute said. Said petition for divorce was withdrawn by the said Emily K. Bailey, and no other petition for the same purpose or either of the purposes of that petition has since been proferred by her against her husband.

At the time of the execution of said conveyance there were outstanding mortgages upon the premises therein described and on other real estate of the petitioner, the principal of which amounted to twenty five hundred dollars, which with the interest, amounting in the whole to about twenty seven hundred dollar was shortly afterwards paid by the said Close from moneys of the petitioner which Close then had in his hands. In July 1864 the said Emily K. Bailey with other relatives of the petitioner made application to the Court of Probate for the District Ridgefield, within which they resided for the appointment of a conservator over the petitioner. That Court after a full hearing denied the application. In May 1869 the said Emily K. Bailey proffered an application to the same Court of Probate for the removal of the petitioner as trustee of real and personal estate which she then owned. [She?] was a witness upon the trial of that application which was Granted by said Court of Probate, and a copy of said application and all the proceeding thereunder is hereto appended marked C In June 1869 after the trial and determination of the last mentioned application by the said Court of Probate the petitioner tendered to the said Joseph B. Close a quit claim deed which included in its description the estate described in the deed of trust. The quit claim from said Close to the petitioner, and if executed and delivered by said Close would have reconveyed said estate to the petitioner: and the petitioner there and then demanded of the said Close that he should execute said deed and deliver the same to the petitioner, and thereby should reconvey said premises to the petitioner, which the said Close then and there refused to do, and refused to reconvey said estate or any part thereof to the petitioner.

The said Emily H. Bailey has not since the Execution of said trust deed by Halcyon G on the 10th day of November 1865 brought any other suit, bill or petition against the said Halcyon G Bailey, Then the application herein referenced to for the removal of said Halcyon G as trustee of her estate

Dated Danbury  Sept 15, 1870

David B Booth
Committee

Exhibit A. Text of the Deed. November 10, 1865

know all men by these presents, that whereas Emily K. Bailey wife of Halcyon Bailey of Ridgefield in County and state of Connecticut brought her  petition for divorce which is now pending in the Superior Court for said Fairfield County and whereas it is agreed between the parties in Consideration of the following conveyance that said suit shall be withdrawn and no further prosecuted, Now therefore, I the said Halcyon G Bailey for the consideration of the promise and of one dollar  received to my full satisfaction of Joseph B. Close of Bergen Point in the State of New Jersey have bargained sold and conveyed and do by these presents bargain sell and confer unto the said Joseph B. Close the following described real Estate viz: one piece of land situated in said Ridgefield in the Parish of Ridgebury at Crow Hill so called, together with all the buildings therein standing, and all the furniture in my dwelling house thereon. continuing about twenty six acres more or less bounded North & east by Elias M. Palmer's land, and South by Smith Keeler's land, and West by highway.

Also one other piece of land situate in said parish, at Bogus so-called, containing about fourteen acres more or less, bounded
North on Sidney St. Johns Land, East on Lucius H. Boughtons Land, South by an old road, or lanes, and West by Edmond Reynold's land, the last mentioned piece being a tract of land purchased by me of William M. Lynes (there being certain incumbrances upon the premises. It is expressly understood and agreed between the parties hereto, that said Close shall pay off said incumbrances, from funds now in his hands, or which may hereafter come to his hands, belonging to said Halcyon. Bailey) to have and to hold unto the said Joseph B. Close, And his assigns and successors, on the Special trust and confidence that he shall from the funds, aforesaid redeem said Real Estate from all said incumbrances, and will apply the use of said Estate and the rents and profits thereof to the comfortable support and maintainance of Emily K. Bailey and Anna Bailey (daughter of said Halcyon G and Emily K.) and should there be other issue of the bodies of said Halcyon G and Emily K. during their intermarriage then also to the comfortable support of said issue during the life of said Emily K. and upon the death of said Emily K. and Halcyon G. then that the said Joseph B. Close shall convey all said estate remaining to the said Anna K Bailey and to the other children of said Halcyon G. and Emily K. issue of said intermarriage should there be any such issue
hereafter to them and their representation, and their heirs absolutely and forever, it being expressly understood and this deed is given upon the express condition that no suit, bill, or application for a divorce shall ever hereafter be brought by said Emily K. against the said Halcyon G and that the present suit shall be withdrawn and should the present suit for divorce be further prosecuted or should the said Emily K at any future time bring any suit, bill, or petition against the said Halcyon then the said Joseph B. Close shall reconvey the premises to the said Halcyon G Bailey in as full and ample a manner as in his first estate

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my Hand and Seal this 10th day of November A.D. 1865 

Halcyon G Bailey (SS)

Lyman Keeler and

delivered in presence of

Lyman Keeler
Nelson L White

Fairfield County SS Denver 10th
November 1865

Personally appeared Halcyon G. Bailey Signer and sealer of the forgoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed before me

Nelson L. While
Commissioner of the Superior Court

(Original deed Stamped)

Exhibit B. Petition for divorce. August 3, 1865

[This exhibit has been separated into its own section, so that the court cases can appear in chronological order in the table of contents. ]
 

Exhibit C. Petition for change of trustee. May 14th, 1869

[This exhibit has been separated into its own section, so that the court cases can appear in chronological order in the table of contents.]

Halcyon G. Bailey v Joseph B. Close

Superior Court
August Term
1870

upon the Report of David B. Booth Esqr. Committee appointed by said Court

Now the said Halcyon Bailey Petitioner in said case respectfully remonstrates against the acceptance of said report and says that the
same ought not to be accepted by this Court because he says that on the trial of said cause before said Committee it was claimed on the part of the said Halcyon G. Bailey that the condition in the deed marked "A" , refered to in said Report, did in its terms provide that no suit whatever or any Legal proceedings should thereafter be brought by Emily K. Bailey his wife against him --- and the respondent contended before said Committee that the sale Consideration of that deed, and the condition on which it was to be defeated, were that the then pending petition should be discontinued and no other petition for a divorce should thereafter be brought against him by her. and the petitioner said Halcyon G Bailey offered evidence to show and did show that if there was, or could be any misapprehension of the condition in said deed, that at the time the same was so drawn and executed the petitioner, said Halcyon G. Bailey refused to execute it until such condition was embodied in it as would prevent any legal proceedings of any nature whatever thereafter by his wife against himself, either a petition for a divorce, or any other such either at law or equity--

To this testimony the respondents objected, but it was [entered?] and received by said Committee for the the understanding expressed by him- self of the time to all the parties that he would report it to the Court, and if the Court should find if admissible, then

[page ends abruptly, not sure where the next page is]

But the Committee making said Report owing to the objections of the respondents determined to refuse said testimony and to lay the same entirely out of this consideration The petitioners claimed that that testimony was acceptable upon the ground that there was or ought be a latent defect in the condition of the deed and for the purpose of clearly explaining what the understanding of the parties was at the time of the drawing and excuting of the deed-- and the said Haleyn G. Bailey further remonstrates & objects of the acceptance of said report because he says that said committee finds that said conveyance was drawn in accordance with the agreement which had been made between the petitioner and Close to Emily K. Bailey -- whereas in fact said deed was not drawn in the pursuance of that understanding, but was understood by all the parties thereto, that said Haylcon G. Bailey should have a life estate therein and in case of the death of his wife and daughter that the same should revert to him --- And the same was proved and not denied and the Petitioner claimed that this should be reported to this Court

[Pr?] Taylor & White 
for Petitioner

Superior Court, Fairfield County, Aug. 1870

Halcyon Bailey
Joseph B. Close

The report of the Committee (as on file) having been presented to the Court for acceptance the petitioner appeared and filed his remonstrance against the acceptance of said report in manner and form as on file.

The Court, having heard the parties, finds that the evidence mentioned in said remonstrance was offered by the petite, at the hearing before said committee for the purposes there mentioned and was rejected by the committee upon the ground that it was not admissible.

The question whether or not said evidence was admissible and whether said Report of said Committee ought to be accepted and the Question what decree ought to be handed in said case are hereby with the consent of said parties reserved for the opinion & advise of the Supreme court of errors next to be holden at Bridgeport in said County in and for the Fourth Judicial district of this State on the second Tuesday of October
AD 1870

By 
By Loomis, Judge

Halcyon G Bailey

Joseph B Close

The above & foregoing is a true copy of all the files & proceedings on the above entitled case - examined & certified by
H Booth

Fairfield County & Superior Court
December Term 1870

Halcyon G. Bailey vs Joseph B. Close
Respondents Costs

[end of page in original, calculations are continued on the next page]

Taxed by
D.B. Booths
Ast Clerk

Fairfield County

Superior Court Dec S. 1870

H. G. Bailey

vs

J. B. Close                   [Dear/Decree?]

Upon the petition of Halcyon G. Bailey of Ridgefield in said County showing that on the 10th day of November 1865 the petitioner was the owner in fee of certain real and personal estate situated in said Ridgefield and [purtenant??] described in a deed of trust of that date to Joseph B Close of Bergen Paint in the state of New Jersey, a copy of which said deed is hereto appended and referred to and is made a part of this decree as it was a part of the petitions avering that said deed contained explicit condition on the happining of which said deed should become void and on which said [cause/case?] should recovery said real and personal estate to the petition as full and ample manner in his first estate. As in that after weras to wit on the 14th day of May 1869, Emily K. Bailey, the wife of the petitioner without any just can therefor and in explicit violation of the conditions of said deed profered to the court of Probate, within and for the Probate District of Ridgefield aforesaid a petition in writing under her hand-- praying in certain alleged reasons therin for the removal of this petitioner as trustee of the estate on which said petition last mentioned the said H.G. Bailey was summoned before said
Probate Court to answer unto the allegations contained in said petition of said Emily K Bailey the said wife of said H.G. Bailey, and afterwards on the 22rd day of May 1869 said application was heard and determined before the aforesaid court of Probate and the said H G Bailey was removed as said trustee and James E Hayt was appointed trustee of the propriety of the said Emily K. Bailey.

Avering that the bringing of said petition was in violation of the condition of said deed that then and after the bringing of said petition the said deed became void and of no effect and that thereupon the said Joseph B Close ought to him have reconveyed all to estate mention in said deed to the petitioner avering also that before he conveyed said estate real and person to said Close in trust as aforesaid by said deed of date [???] 10 1865 to wit an or about the 1st day of September 1864 the petition became sick and disordered and unsound of mind and was consequence of said sickness and derangement unfit an incapable of executing or making any valid or Legal contract and incapable of executing or delivering said deed of trust to said Close or any deed or deeds whatever and so continued to be sick disordered and unsound of mind and incapable of making any contract or deed whatever until on or about the 1st day
of July 1868 all of which the said Close [will know yet?] that which he was so sick disordered and unsound of mind as aforsaid the said Close and others by underly influencing, and persuading the petitioner induced him to make, execute, and deliver said deed
of trust to said Close. Avering also that same Close has then refused and still does refuse to reconvey said estate to the petition though often requested to do so --- 

avering also that the said Emily K. bailey and her daughter Anna Bailey claim to have some interest in and to said real and personal  estate and making said Emily & said Anna parties to said proceedings.

Praying this court to order and decree that said Joseph Close make and execute and deliver to in petitioner a good and sufficient
deed of all the estate described in said deed of trust and to reconvey all said estate to the petitioner in as full and ample a manner as in his first and former estate or grant such other and further relief as to this cent may seem just and equal, as by same petition dated
July 1869 duly [seen?] on all the respondents returns to and entered in the docket of said Superior Court at the August term therof Ad 1869 [wit men fully appre??]

At which term of said Court this parties all appeared and the respondents made answer to said petition And David B Booth Esq was thereof appointed a committee to find and report the facts to this court who on a full [mening?] of the parties with them exhibits, evidence, and arguments of Counsel, found the facts and made his report in writing to this court then in Superior at Danbury on the 15th day of September 1870, as the August term therof 1870. Which report is appended to this [decree?] and made a part thereof and therupon said Court having heard the parties, on the remonstrance filed by the petitioner to be acceptance of said report, [reserved?] for the opinion and advice of this Supreme Court of Errors there next to be holden at Bridgeport in said County in and for the Fourth Judicial District on the 2nd Sunday of October 1870. Whether said report of said committee ought to be accepted and the
further question what decree ought to be [made?] in said case, as will ever fully and at length [appen?] by the full [ascend?] in this
case including the report of the committee appointed to find the facts the remonstrance of the petition to the report of said committee and of the findings by the Superior Court and the reservation made by said Court for the advice of said Supreme Court which advice is made a part of this decree.

And now at this December Term of said Court 1870 This Court having received the Advice and decisions of said Superior Court in the [premises?] and in confinely thereto [??] decide, order and decree that said report of said Committee be accepted and approved and that the petition be dismissed with costs [taxed?] and allowed against him and in favor of the respendents, at this Term of and that execution same therefore

H. Blake
Clerk

Halcyon G. Bailey vs. Joseph B. Close and Others.

 A divorce suit brought by the wife was settled by an agreement that the wife should withdraw the suit and the husband should convey certain real estate to a trustee for her upon certain conditions to be embodied in the deed. The conveyance was made, the deed referring to the fact that the divorce suit was then pending and was to be withdrawn, and containing a condition that the property should be reconveyed if the divorce suit should be further prosecuted, or if the wife should at any future time bring any suit, bill, or petition against the husband. The wife some time after brought a petition to the court of probate for the removal of her husband as trustee of her property under the statute, which petition was granted. Held, on a bill in equity brought by the husband for the reconveyance of the real estate conveyed by him, that the petition of the wife to the court of probate was not a violation of the condition of the deed and that he was not entitled to a reconveyance.

And held that parol evidence was inadmissible on the part of the petitioner to show that, at the time of the execution of the deed, he refused to execute the same unless such a condition should be inserted as would prevent any legal proceedings of any kind whatever by his wife against him, and that the condition of the deed was inserted for that object.

BILL IN EQUITY to compel a conveyance of certain real estate; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield county. The facts were found by a committee.

The petitioner, on the 10th day of November, 1865, owned in fee the real estate in question, and on that day conveyed it to the respondent Close, by a deed the material parts of which are as follows:

“Know all men by these presents, that whereas Emily K. Bailey, wife of Halcyon G. Bailey, of Ridgefield, in the state of Connecticut, brought her petition for divorce, which is now pending in the Superior Court for Fairfield County; and whereas it is agreed between the parties, in consideration of the following conveyance, that said suit shall be withdrawn and no further prosecuted : Now, therefore, I, the said Halcyon G. Bailey, for the consideration of the  premises, and of one dollar received to my full satisfaction of Joseph B. Close, of Bergen Point, in the state of New Jersey, have bargained, sold and conveyed, and do by these presents, bargain, sell and confirm unto the said Joseph B. Close, the following described real estate (describing it. ) To have and to hold unto the said Joseph B. Close, and his assigns and successors, upon the special trust and confidence that he will apply the use of said estate, and the rents and profits thereof, to the comfortable support and maintenance of Emily K. Bailey and Anna K. Bailey, (daughter of said Halcyon G. and Emily K., ) and should there be other issue of the bodies of said Halcyon G. and Emily K. during their intermarriage, then also to the comfortable support of said issue, during the life of said Emily K., and upon the death of said Emily K. and Halcyon G., then that the said Joseph B. Close shall convey all said estate remaining to the said Anna K. Bailey, and to the other children of said Halcyon G. and Emily K., issue of said intermarriage, should there be any such issue hereafter, to them and their representatives and heirs absolutely and for ever; it being expressly understood, and this deed is given upon the express condition, that no suit, bill, or application for a divorce shall ever hereafter be brought by said Emily K. against the said Halcyon G., and that the present suit shall be withdrawn; and should the present suit for divorce be further prosecuted, or should the said Emily K. at any future time bring any suit, bill, or petition against the said Halcyon G., then the said Joseph B. Close shall reconvey the premises to the said Halcyon G. Bailey in as full and ample a manner as in his first estate. In witness whereof & c.”

The petition of Emily K. Bailey for divorce referred to in the foregoing deed was withdrawn by her upon the execution and delivery of the deed, and no other petition for divorce has since been brought by her against her husband. She did however in May, 1869, bring a petition to the court of probate for the removal of her husband as trustee of property which she then owned, which petition was granted. The petitioner thereupon brought the present petition to the Superior Court, alleging that the bringing of the petition to the court of probate by the said Emily was a violation of the condition of his deed, and that he was entitled thereupon to a reconveyance from the respondent Close, for which he prayed. Emily K. Bailey and Anna K. Bailey were also made parties respondent.

On the hearing before the committee the petitioner claimed that the terms of the deed, properly construed, embraced any legal proceedings brought by his wife against him as well as proceedings directly for a divorce, but in view of any doubt on the subject offered parol evidence that at the time when the deed was drawn he refused to execute it until such a condition was inserted in it as would prevent any legal proceedings thereafter of any kind whatever by his wife against him, and that the final clause of the deed was thereupon inserted for that object. The committee rejected the evidence and the petitioner remonstrated on this ground against the acceptance of the report.

The Superior Court reserved the questions as to the acceptance of the report, and as to the decree to be passed upon the facts found, for the advice of this court.

White and Taylor, for the petitioner, cited 1 Greenl. Ev. , § 288, 290;  Glendale Manufacturing Co. v. Protection Ins. Co., 21 Conn., 19, 37; Macdonald v. Longbottom, 1 Ellis & Ellis, 977; Baldwin v. Carter, 17 Conn., 201.

Brewster, with whom was Beardsley, for the respondents.

PARDEE, J. The expression “any suit, bill, or petition" found in the last part of the closing paragraph in the conveyance, separated from the accompanying words and taken by itself, is indeed general; but before we decide upon its meaning we must restore it to its place and read it in the light of the whole instrument; and by so doing we shall find that the grantor has restricted its operation by an explicit limitation, twice stated. In the preamble he sets forth distinctly that “ it is agreed between the parties, in consideration of the following conveyance, that said suit shall be withdrawn and no further prosecuted; ” and in the first part of the sentence from which the expression under consideration is taken, he reiterates that it is " expressly understood and this deed is given upon the express condition, that no suit, bill, or application for a divorce shall ever hereafter be brought by said Emily K. against the said Halcyon G., and that the present suit shall be withdrawn; and should the present suit for divorce be further prosecuted, or should the said Emily K. at any future time bring any suit, bill, or petition against the said Halcyon G., then the said Joseph B. Close shall reconvey the premises to the said Halcyon G. Bailey."

These clauses of limitation are framed of words which are of common use and plain meaning. They show that the grantor sought by the execution of the deed to secure the withdrawal of the suit for divorce then pending, and the prevention of another. They are so clear and explicit as to shut out all doubt as to their import. Whenever limitations, thus carefully stated, and a general expression, are applied as in this instrument to the same subject matter, the former, by a well established rule of construction, are made the superior and controlling words in the deed. Lampon v. Corke, 5 Barn. & Ald., 606; Lyman v. Clark, 9 Mass., 235; Rich v. Lord, 18 Pick., 325; Jackson v. Stackhouse, 1 Cowen, 122; McIntyre v. Williamson, 1 Edw. Ch., 34. And the grantor cannot be permitted to prevent the full operation of this rule, by the introduction of parol testimony as to what was his secret meaning or intention when he used them. The petition does not ask for any correction of a mistake in the deed nor does it contain any allegation on the subject.

The Superior Court is advised that the evidence offered was inadmissible, and that the remonstrance should be over ruled, the report accepted, and the petition dismissed with costs.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.