{
  "id": 8656437,
  "name": "HATTIE CAUDLE et als. v. SARAH CAUDLE et als.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Caudle v. Caudle",
  "decision_date": "1912-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "53",
  "last_page": "56",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 N.C. 53"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 N. C., 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652401
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N. C., 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656531
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/137/0397-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N. C., 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 465",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N. C., 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698687
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/72/0570-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 321,
    "char_count": 5049,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.785709596552438e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4152406182754284
    },
    "sha256": "5ab54c0263f1bae09dfaf344f6a1b6711e57879c2f9fc78b1609fa55c929abf4",
    "simhash": "1:7b06367e764ee6bc",
    "word_count": 917
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:45.962633+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HATTIE CAUDLE et als. v. SARAH CAUDLE et als."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nTbe testator devised to bis daughter Sarab \u201c60 acres of land\u201d; to bis daughter Eliza \u201c40 acres\u201d; to bis daughter Henrietta \u201c40 acres\u201d; to bis son S. J. \u201c125 acres\u201d; to . bis son R. E. \u201c82 acres,\u201d tbe latter to include \u201ctbe old borne place where I now live.\u201d It was admitted in tbe trial below that tbe testator died seized and possessed of 347 acres of land.\nTbe plaintiffs are tbe other heirs of tbe testator, who have brought this proceeding against tbe devisees above named, alleging that tbe testator left 347 acres of land, and asking for a partition of tbe same among themselves and tbe defendants in equal shares. Tbe clerk adjudged' that tbe defendants were sole tenants in common of said 347 acres under tbe will. On appeal, this judgment was affirmed by bis Honor, and tbe plaintiffs appealed.\nTbe court was correct in bolding that tbe devisees were tenants in common of tbe 347 acres. If tbe testator bad devised one-fifth of bis land to each of said devisees, it could not be questioned that they were entitled to take as tenants in common and could make partition between themselves, or apply to tbe courts to order partition, and that one-fifth be set off and allotted to each devisee. It being admitted here that tbe testator left 347 acres of land, it follows that instead of giving one-fifth thereof to each of said devisees, tbe testator devised 40-347ths to one; 40-347ths to another; 60-347ths to another; 125-347ths to another; and 82-347ths to tbe other. Tbe testator left it to the said devisees to use their own pleasure as to making partition among themselves in that proportion, with no restriction save that one of the devisees named should have the home place on his 82 acres.\nIt may be that these devisees may prefer to continue as ten-) ants in common, or they may set apart and allot in severalty to each the specified number of acres, if they can agree. If they cannot do so, then they may apply to the court to appoint, commissioners to make and allot to each his share in severalty. The plaintiffs are the other heirs of the testator for whom other provision is made in the will. They have no interest in said 347 acres of land, and their petition for partition thereof was properly denied.\nIn Harvey v. Harvey, 72 N. C., 570, the testator devised to one son 250 acres of land and to another 250 acres of land, and then provided' that the remainder should be sold. The court held that it was competent to appoint commissioners to allot to each son 250 acres of land, so as to make that certain which before was uncertain. The present is a much stronger ease in favor of the devisees, as the testator had only 347 acres and the acreage devised to the five devisees named foots up exactly 347. It thus appears that the title to the entire tract went to the five devisees as tenants in common, and that it is for them, should they wish to make partition. This ease was cited with approval in Jones v. Robinson, 78 N. C., 400, and Wright v. Harris, 116 N. C., 465.\nIn the latter case the testator devised 50 acres of land to a family servant, and it was held that he was entitled to have 50 acres of land allotted to him by metes and bounds out of the 1,200 acres left by the testator. This decision was reaffirmed in Harris v. Wright, 118 N. C., 423.\nParol evidence of surrounding circumstances is competent in the interpretation of a deed or will to enable the court to ascertain the intention of the parties. Ward v. Gay, 137 N. C., 397; Boddie v. Bond, 154 N. C., 359. But in this case it is not even necessary to do this. It is admitted that the testator owned 347 acres only, and the will shows on its face that he devised that number of acres, in proportions stated, to five of his children. Tbe will specifies that one of tbe devisees is to bave tbat part of tbe tract on wbieb tbe \u201cborne place stood,\u201d and tbe residuary clause shows tbat tbe testator understood tbat be bad disposed of all bis realty.\nTbe judgment of tbe court below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J er\u00f3me & Prince and B. E. Austin for plaintiff.",
      "R. L. Smith for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HATTIE CAUDLE et als. v. SARAH CAUDLE et als.\n(Filed 17 April, 1912.)\nWills \u2014 Devises\u2014Indefinite Description \u2014 Division of Lands \u2014 Tenants in Common \u2014 Partition\u2014Parol Evidence.\nUnder a devise of testator\u2019s lands in different portions to liis children, to one of them \u201cthe old home place where I now live,\u201d it appearing that the sum of all the portions equaled the acreage of all of his lands, the children named took as tenants -in common, except as to \u201cthe old tome place\u201d specifically devised.\n' The lands may be divided among them in proceedings for partition in accordance with the number of acres each was to take under the will. The number of acres being equal to all the testator owned, would make the admission of parol evidence unnecessary to fit the lands to the devise, which otherwise would have been competent.\nAppeal from Justice, J., at January Term, 1912, of StaNly.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Chief Justice Ciarle.\nJ er\u00f3me & Prince and B. E. Austin for plaintiff.\nR. L. Smith for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0053-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 104
}