{
  "id": 11271402,
  "name": "ELIZABETH WHITEHEAD et al. v. MARY ELIZA WEAVER et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitehead v. Weaver",
  "decision_date": "1910-09-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "88",
  "last_page": "90",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. 88"
    }
  ],
  "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": "119 N. C., 89",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654420
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0089-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N. C., 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/99/0222-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N. C., 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276385
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/50/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N. C., 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693516
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/58/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/125/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 752",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3677,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5784036006119728e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6799382898385196
    },
    "sha256": "c2965089a0bb09ad5c131091eb06ae6a9fdcefe6e4a3815b34b3165b91a2f04a",
    "simhash": "1:16311a7cf9a90657",
    "word_count": 673
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH WHITEHEAD et al. v. MARY ELIZA WEAVER et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThe conveyance of the remainder to \u201cPolly Whitehead and the children of Penina Dixon, deceased,\u201d vested such remainder in fee in them as tenants in common, an undivided one-ninth interest to each, there being eight children of Penina Dixon. Upon the death of Polly Whitehead, who died after the life tenancy ceased, her undivided one-ninth descended to her three children, the plaintiffs herein.\nIn Helms v. Austin, 116 N. C., 752, a deed to \u201cSarah Staton and her children\u201d was held to convey a fee simple to said Sarah and children as tenants in common. This was cited and approved. Darden v. Timberlake, 139 N. C., 182.\nIn King v. Stokes, 125 N. C., 514, the words \u201cUnto Alfred May during the term of his natural life, and after his death to his wife, the said Ida Eugenia, and her children\u201d were held to confer a remainder upon said wife and children as tenants in common. In Gay v. Baker, 58 N. C., 344, the conveyance in trust for a woman and her children was held to make the mother and children tenants in common. The same construction was held as to a devise in Moore v. Leach, 50 N. C., 88; Hunt v. Satterwhite, 85 N. C., 73; Hampton v. Wheeler, 99 N. C., 222.\nIn Silliman v. Whitaker, 119 N. C., 89, it was held that a devise to \u201cS. and her children, if she shall have any,\u201d vested the title in S. and her children as tenants in common.\nThe ruling below that the devise carried a half interest to Polly Whitehead must be\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pou & Finch and Murray Allen for plaintiffs.",
      "Daniels & Swindell for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH WHITEHEAD et al. v. MARY ELIZA WEAVER et al.\n(Filed 29 September, 1910.)\nEstates \u2014 Remainders\u2014Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Interpretation.\nAn estate to D. for life, then to W. and the children of P., the said W. surviving the life tenant; Held, W. and the eight children of P. held in common an undivided one-ninth interest, each; and at the time of proceedings in partition the said W. being \u2022 dead, her one-ninth interest descended to her three children.\nAppeal from Gui\u00f3n, J., at the February Term, 1910, of WlLSON. \u2022\n- The facts are stated in the opinion.\nAppeal by defendants from the clerk of Superior Court of Wilson in a petition for partition. Both parties claim under a deed from S. A. Woodard, 21 January, 1884, to Jesse P. Dixon and wife, Elizabeth, for 400 acres. The habendum is as follows: \u201cTo have and to hold, to them, the said Jesse P. Dixon and wife, for life, and the life of each of them, and after the death of the survivor, then to tbe living sister and tbe children of tbe deceased sister or sisters of tbe said Elizabeth Dixon, in fee, and in tbe event of tbe death of tbe living sister of tbe said Elizabeth Dixon without issue living at her death, before tbe death of tbe said Jesse P. Dixon and wife, and both of them, then tbe whole of tbe said land shall go to tbe children of tbe other sister in fee.\n\u201cTbe purpose of this deed is to vest tbe title of tbe said land in tbe said Jesse P. Dixon and wife for their joint lives, then in tbe survivor for bis or her life, and then in Polly Whitehead and tbe children of Penina Dixon, deceased, and if at tbe death of tbe said Dixon and wife, or tbe survivor, tbe said Polly Whitehead shall be dead without issue living at her death, then to tbe children of tbe said Penina Dixon in fee simple.\u201d\nJesse P. Dixon and wife are dead. Polly Whitehead bad since died, leaving three children, these plaintiffs. Tbe defendants are tbe eight \u201cchildren of Penina Dixon.\u201d Tbe clerk adjudged that Polly Whitehead was seised of one-ninth undivided interest in the land. The judge reversed this and held that she was owner of an undivided one-half, and the defendants appealed.\nPou & Finch and Murray Allen for plaintiffs.\nDaniels & Swindell for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0088-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 138
}