{
  "id": 11269752,
  "name": "CARL DICK et al. v. BEN MILLER et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dick v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1908-12-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "63",
  "last_page": "64",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 63"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2747,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.243398109417839e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6084735055982028
    },
    "sha256": "eff7a5301b68c49cf88361f097918fd944f54bba7baed26366a2d3d0706059b4",
    "simhash": "1:01129b6950542ce5",
    "word_count": 480
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CARL DICK et al. v. BEN MILLER et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThere is but one point raised by this appeal. The paper-writing offered by defendant as a conveyance from Henry Dick to Ben Miller contains the following clause: \u201cThe purpose and intent of this deed is to convey the above property to the aforesaid Ben Miller, but title \u201eis vested in Henry Dick during bis natural life, then title passes to Ben Miller.\u201d There is but one witness to the paper, and the plaintiff, contends that the paper is a will, and therefore void.\nThe paper-writing contains the following language: \u201cIn consideration of $1 and other valuable services, the party of the first part has bargained and sold, and by these presents does bargain, sell and convey unto the said party of the second part and his heirs a tract of land,\u201d etc. The first words of the instrument ar\u00e9: \u201cThis deed, made this 15 March, 1906, by Henry Dick to Ben Miller,\u201d etc. There is a description -of the property by metes and bounds, the usual habendum clause and full covenants of warranty. These -are not the words of a will. Throughout the language is that of a deed. There are no words such as are used in a will. If a will, it would have been revocable. This instrument certainly is not.\nIn this State an estate of freehold may be made to commence in futuro. It is clear that the intent here was to convey a present interest, reserving a life estate in the grantor. The reservation of the title during the grantor\u2019s life was meant doubtless as a reservation of the possession. There are cases of \u201ctaking the will for the deed,\u201d but a court could not mistake this conveyance with warranty, and upon a valuable consideration, for a testamentary and revocable disposition of property.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. C. Strudwick for plaintiffs.",
      "John A. Barringer and A. M. Scales and Shaw & Hines for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARL DICK et al. v. BEN MILLER et al.\n(Filed 22 December, 1908.)\n1. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Interpretation\u2014Wills.\nWhen the language of a paper-writing is that of a deed, describes the lands and contains the usual habendum clause, recites a valuable consideration and is therein expressly spoken of by the maker as a deed, the writing cannot be interpreted as a will and is not revocable by the maker as such.\n2. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Interpretation\u2014Estates in Futuro\u2014 Title \u2014 Possession.\nAn estate of freehold may commence in futuro in this State; and when a deed expresses \u201cthe purpose and intent\u201d to convey the lands described, and contains the words \u201ctitle is vested\u201d in the. grantor \u201cduring his natural life, then passes to\u201d M., the reservation of the \u201ctitle\u201d during the grantor\u2019s life is construed as the reservation of the possession.\nActioN tried before J ones, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1908, Of Gruilford.\nPlaintiffs appealed.\nR. C. Strudwick for plaintiffs.\nJohn A. Barringer and A. M. Scales and Shaw & Hines for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0063-01",
  "first_page_order": 107,
  "last_page_order": 108
}