Where there is a valid delivery of the deed, with the requisite intent on the part of the grantor, the fact that the grantor retains possession of the premises does not necessarily invalidate the deed. Walsh v. Kennedy, 115 Mont. 551, 147 P.2d 425 (1944); Ogg v. Gunderson, 74 Cal.App.2d 384, 168 P.2d 793 (1946); Hackett v. Hackett, 429 P.2d 753 (Okl. 1967); Corkins v. Corkins, 358 Mich. 691, 101 N.W.2d 362 (1960). In Corkins v. Corkins, supra, that court stated:

"The door having thus been opened, [Johns] is in no position to complain that [Baird] sought to, and did, elicit from the same witness additional facts relating to" the same issue. Corkins v Corkins, 358 Mich. 691, 695; 101 N.W.2d 362 (1960), see also, LaForest v. Grunow, 43 Mich. App. 254, 257; 204 N.W.2d 355 (1972). For additional authority, see State v. Maggard, 104 Ariz. 462; 455 P.2d 259 (1969), Gaines Bros Co v. Gaines, 176 Okla. 576; 56 P.2d 869 (1936), 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed), § 18, p 345 n 34.

No door was thereby opened which made the alleged subsequent statements of deceased admissible. In Corkins v Corkins, 358 Mich. 691; 101 N.W.2d 362 (1960), the Court, on page 695, spoke as follows: "As we held in Fox v Barrett's Estate, 117 Mich. 162, 163-164; 75 N.W. 440, 441 (1898), quoted in Bishop v Shurley, 237 Mich. 76, 83; 211 N.W. 75, 78 (1926):

This is especially true in cases where there is a close relationship, such as parent and child, between the grantor and grantee. See, e.g, Corkins v.Corkins, 358 Mich. 691, 101 N.W.2d 362 (1960); Chapman v. Chapman, 400 P.2d 831 (Okla. 1965); 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds § 118 (1965). In Karlen v. Karlen, 89 S.D. 523, 235 N.W.2d 269 (1975), we recognized the significance of the relationship between the grantor and grantee in the context of acts or words of the grantor apparently inconsistent with a finding of delivery.

In re Hulteen's Estate, 170 Kan. 515, 227 P.2d 112, 115; Richard v. Leinbach, 146 Kan. 210, 69 P.2d 674; 26 C.J.S. Deeds § 42c, p. 687; see also, Severson v. First Baptist Church of Everett, 34 Wn.2d 297, 208 P.2d 616, 627. At least one court has concluded that grantor's retention of the incidents of management of the land conveyed by him is not inconsistent with the present passage of title, particularly in a parent-son relationship. Corkins v. Corkins, 358 Mich. 691, 101 N.W.2d 362, 87 A.L.R.2d 783; see also, Fisher v. Pugh, Okla., 261 P.2d 181, 186. We have no difficulty agreeing with the trial court that the deed in question was delivered to the grantee-son the day it was executed.

The trial judge concluded from all the evidence the grantor had no intention of passing a present title. The cases relied upon by appellant, including Lintner Estate v. Meier, 344 Mich. 119, and Corkins v. Corkins, 358 Mich. 691, were cases in which the trial court found as a matter of fact there was intent to convey a present title. This Court found the record sustained the trial court and, therefore, refused to reverse.