{
  "id": 8653384,
  "name": "ANDREW FULBRIGHT et al. v. DANIEL YODER et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fulbright v. Yoder",
  "decision_date": "1893-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "456",
  "last_page": "457",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 N.C. 456"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "86 N. C., 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273345
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/86/0205-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 269,
    "char_count": 3550,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4692981126793797e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6588552073885389
    },
    "sha256": "f4cbf6e5febe0ebcdabcc71f406313eb1555ce84607994da70769ce58c63acad",
    "simhash": "1:9cb8e063e0cdcf87",
    "word_count": 613
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:11.999452+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ANDREW FULBRIGHT et al. v. DANIEL YODER et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Guriam:\nThe case of Holmes v. Holmes, 86 N. C., 205, is similar to the one before us, and, according to the principles there laid down, Z. T. McCaslin took an equitable fee, although words of inheritance were omitted in the limitation. It is therefore unnecessary to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence offered for the purpose of correcting the deed. While it must be admitted that the doctrine of the above mentioned case is not supported by text-writers or the previous decisions of this Court, yet it is believed to be founded upon more equitable principles in arriving at the real intention of the grantor. It is also in accord with the spirit of recent legislation (The Code, \u00a7 1280) which declares that limitations without the use of the word \u201cheirs\u201d shall be construed as limitations in fee, unless a contrary intention plainly appear. In view of these considerations, we do not feel inclined to overrule the said decision. Its application to this case, as well perhaps to the great majority of others, very clearly gives effect to the true intention of the parties.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Guriam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. C. A. Gilley, for plaintiffs (appellants).",
      "Messrs. D. W. Robinson and M. L. McCorkle, for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANDREW FULBRIGHT et al. v. DANIEL YODER et al.\nDeed \u2014 Omission of Words of Inheritance \u2014 Intention of Grantor.\nAlthough words of inheritance are omitted in a deed, yet, if the real intention of the grantor appear to be to confer a fee, that effect will be given to the limitation.\nAction for partition of lands, commenced before the Clerk and transferred to the Superior Court of Catawba County, and heard before Boykin, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1893, of said Court.\nThe issue submitted', with the consent of all parties, was: \u201c Were the words \u2018in trust for the sole benefit of the said Z. T. McCaslin, his heirs and assigns, forever, in fee simple/ omitted from the habendum clause of the deed by mistake, inadvertence or oversight, as alleged in the answer?\u201d\nThe deed in question was as follows:\n\u201cThis deed, made the 12th day of October, 1860, between Matthew McCaslin and wife Margaret, of the first part, and J. C. McCaslin, agent of Z. T. McCaslin, of the second part, all of the County of Catawba and State of North Carolina\u2014\n\u201cWitnesseth, that the said Matthew McCaslin and wife, for and in consideration of one dollar to them in hand paid, and of natural good will and affection, hath bargained and sold unto J. C. McCaslin, in trust for Z. T. McCaslin, all that tr\u00e1ct or parcel of land on Potts creek in Catawba County (describing it), containing eighty-three acres \u2014 all woods, ways, waters and watercourses \u2014 unto the said J. C. McCaslin, agent, his heirs and assigns, forever. The said M. McCaslin and wife hath \u00e1 right to convey the same, and by these presents doth convey the same in fee simple unto J. C. McCaslin, agent. Witness,\u201d etc. (Signed by Matthew McCaslin and wife.)\nThe deed was duly acknowledged in open Court, and recorded, with the private examination of the wife.\nHis Honor told the jury that the defendant Plenry McOas-lin must satisfy them by \u201c clear, strong and convincing testimony\u201d that the words \u201cin trust for the sole benefit of the said Z. T. McCaslin, his heirs and assigns forever, in fee simple,\u201d had been omitted from the habendum clause in the deed by mistake, inadvertence or oversight, as alleged in the answer?\nThat if he had done so, they should answer the issue \u201c Yes; \u201d otherwise, \u201cNo.\u201d\nThe jury returned for the verdict \u201cYes.\u201d Judgment was rendered for the defendants and the plaintiffs appealed.\nMr. C. A. Gilley, for plaintiffs (appellants).\nMessrs. D. W. Robinson and M. L. McCorkle, for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0456-01",
  "first_page_order": 484,
  "last_page_order": 485
}