Though particular words are appropriate to particular classes of conveyances, it is not necessary that these particular words be used, and the conveyance is valid, provided it contains any words signifying an intention to transfer the land or the grantor's interest therein.87 The phrase "give, grant, bargain, and sell" is frequently employed, and is no doubt sufficient for any class of conveyance, in view of the rule before referred to, that a conveyance will be upheld if possible, though it cannot operate as intended. It is necessary, however, that the conveyance contain words showing an intention to transfer the grantor's interest,88 and the words "sign over"89 and "warrant and defend" have been held to be insufficient,90 as have the words "does will."91-92

84. See Goodwin v. Norton, 92 Me. 532, 43 Atl. 111.

85. Hollis v. Harris, 96 Ala. 288; Wagle v. Iowa State Bank, Iowa 156 N. W. 991; Wilds v. Bogan, 55 Ind. 331 (semble); Perry v. Hackney, 142 N. C. 368, 115 Am. St. Rep. 741, 9 Ann. Cas. 244, 55 S. E. 289; Goodwin v. Norton, 92 Me. 532, 43 Atl. Ill

86. John v. Hatfield, 84 Ind. 75 (semble); Hill v. Nisbet, 58 Ga. 586 (semble); Clark v. Cress-well, 112 Md. 339, 21 Ann. Cas. 338, 76 Atl. 579; Simpkins v. Windsor, 21 Ore. 382, 28 Pac. 72 (semble).

87. Shove v. Pincke, 5 Term. R. 124; Peters v. Mclaren, 218 Fed. 410, 134 C. C. A. 198; San Francisco & O. R. Co. v. City of Oakland, 43 Cal. 502; Yeager v. Farnsworth, 163 Iowa. 537; 145 N. W. 87; Howe v. Warnack. 4 Bibb. (Ky.) 234; Gordon v. Haywood, 2 N. H. 402; Hutchins v. Carleton, 19 N. H. 487; Jackson v. Root, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 60; Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N. Y. 422; Folk v. Varn, 9 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 303; Evenson v. Webster, 3 S. D. 382, 44 Am. St. Rep. 802, 53 N. W. 747; Hanks v. Folsom, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 555.