¶1 (after stating the case). It is an established rule of the interpretation. of deeds, that the intention of the parties should control unless inconsistent with some rule of law.
¶2 In the case of Parkhurst v. Smith, Willes Rep., 332, Lord Chief Justice Willes on this subject said, “the construction of deeds ought to be favorable, and as near to the intent of the parties as possibly may be, and as the law will permit. That too much regard is not to be had to the natural and proper signification of words, and sentences, to prevent the simple intention of the parties from taking effect, for the law is not nice in grants, and therefore it doth often transpose words, contrary to their order, to bring them to the intent of the parties.” The rule of construction there laid down by the learned Judge, has been adopted by this Court, and frequently applied in the construction of deeds — notably in the cases of Phillips v. Davis, 69 N. C., 117; Waugh v. Miller, 75 N. C., 127; Allen v. Bowen, 74 N. C., 155; Phillips v. Thompson, 73 N. C., 543; Stell v. Barham, 87 N. C., 62.
¶3 Some importance may be attached to the fact, that the haben-dum in the deed for our construction, is separated from the clause of warranty by a semicolon, but that can have no effect in controlling the construction, for it is a rule in reading and constructing deeds, “ that no regard is had to punctuation, since no estate ought to depend upon the insertion or omission of a comma or semicolon, and although stops are sometimes used, they are not regarded in the construction or meaning of the instrument.” 3 Wash, on Real Property, 343, and cases cited in the note.
¶4 Then disregarding the punctuation, we think the proper construction of the deed in this ease is, that the words “ unto the said Redmond D. Wells, his heirs and assigns,” refer to and control both the warranty and habendum. This construction manifestly effects the intention of the parties, for if only a life-estate was intended, why warrant the title to the bargainee and *70 bis heirs? Ia fact, this case is so directly on “all fours” with the case of Phillips v. Thompson, supra, that the decision in that case controls and is decisive of this. There the words of limitation were, “To have and to hold all and singular the premises, and we do for ourselves, our heirs and executors and administrators warrant and forever defend against the lawful claims of all persons whatsoever unto him the said Council Best, to him, his heirs and assigns forever,” and it was held this deed conveyed the fee simple.
¶5 Our conclusion is there is no error, and the judgment rendered by the Judge of the Superior Court is affirmed. Let this be certified to the Superior Court of Nash county, to the end the case may be disposed of in conformity to this opinion.
¶6 No error. Affirmed.