{
  "id": 8657275,
  "name": "J. H. RIPLEY v. T. H. ARMSTRONG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ripley v. Armstrong",
  "decision_date": "1912-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 N.C. 158"
    }
  ],
  "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": "115 N. C., 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652357
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/115/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269201
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0269-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N. C., 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276146,
        11276135
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/5/0176-02",
        "/nc/5/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N. C., 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11977185
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/3/0233-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4196,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5522471541773556e-07,
      "percentile": 0.814452116706418
    },
    "sha256": "b7d31eff9cc1bdb14275ee3430540b3d167080de3633209a7038a80d2164aca4",
    "simhash": "1:2a5a388c3c4f3c41",
    "word_count": 731
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:45.962633+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. H. RIPLEY v. T. H. ARMSTRONG."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nTbe plaintiff contracted to sell a tract of 17% acres to tbe defendant, wbo now, refuses to pay for tbe same upon tbe ground that tbe plaintiff cannot' execute a good title. Tbe plaintiff acquired title under tbe will of bis wife.\nTwo questions are presented on tbis appeal. It appears in tbe probate of tbe will that tbe testatrix, \u201cbolding tbe instrument in ber bands, with ber name written at tbe bottom, acknowledged and declared tbe same to be ber last will and testament; that the same bad been signed by ber; that she then and there requested tbe witnesses to sign tbe instrument, which they did i\u00f1 ber presence and at ber request as witnesses.\u201d This ivas sufficient. Elbeck v. Gramberry, 3 N. C., 233; Bateman v. Mariner, 5 N. C., 176. This acknowledgment was of tbe same effect as if tbe testatrix bad signed in tbe presence of the witnesses, which indeed is more than the statute requires. In re Herring, 152 N. C., 260.\nTbe provision in tbe will in controversy is as follows: \u201cI give and bequeath to my beloved husband, J. H. Ripley, all my real estate consisting of land bouses and whatsoever it may be in Hendersonville, N. C., or wheresoever it may be found, also all my personal property to use as be thinks best for tbe maintenance of our children.\u201d Upon tbis language, especially taken in connection with tbe attendant circumstances, we are of opinion that tbe plaintiff took as trustee, with power under tbe will to sell and convey tbe property in fee , simple. Tbe primary purpose in construing a will is to ascertain tbe intention of tbe testator from tbe language used by bim. In ascertaining such intention it is competent to consider tbe condition of tbe testator and family and all tbe attendant circumstances. Parks v. Robinson, 138 N. C., 269. In Crawford v. Wearn, 115 N. C., 540, it was beld that the \u201cpower to invest or use\u201d conferred upon the life tenant the power to convey in fee simple.\nIt appears upon the \u201cfacts agreed\u201d in this case that the testatrix had executed mortgages upon the land described, aggregating $2,200, which were unpaid and a lien upon her land at the time of her death, and that she left no fund or personalty with which to liquidate said indebtedness; that the land is not valuable for agricultural purposes and it is without improvements thereupon except a cottage, and no income can be derived from the land sufficient to maintain the family of four children who \u25a0survived her,' except'by a sale; that it was necessary for the plaintiff to sell the land to obtain means of maintenance for the children. Upon these facts it is placed beyond reasonable doubt that the intention and meaning of the testatrix was to vest the husband with authority to sell said land, and that he can make a good title in fee thereto.\nUpon the case agreed the judgment must be\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith, Shipman, and Justice for plaintiffs.",
      "Michael Schenclc for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. H. RIPLEY v. T. H. ARMSTRONG.\n(Filed 22 May, 1912.)\n1. Wills \u2014 Acknowledgment\u2014Signing Sufficient.\nIt is sufficient acknowledgment of a will, and tlie same in effect as if tlie testatrix liad signed in the presence of the witnesses, for her to hold the signed instrument in her hands, declare it to be lier last will and testament, saying she had signed it, and request the witnesses to sign, which they did in her presence.\n2. Wills \u2014 Interpretation \u2014 Intent \u2014 Testator\u2019s Circumstances \u2014 Evidence.\nThe primary purpose in construing the will is to ascertain the testator\u2019s' intent, and it is competent to consider his condition and that of his family, with all the attendant circumstances.\n3. Same \u2014 Devise\u2014Powers of Sale.\nWhen it appears that the land of the testatrix was of comparatively little value, without sufficient income to maintain her children, the beneficiaries of her will, and that it ivas mortgaged without provision or means for releasing it, except by sale, a devise of the lands to the husband, \u201cto use as he thinks best for tbe maintenance of\u201d tbeir children, makes tbe bus ..mcl tbe trustee, and rests in him tbe power to sell- and convey tbe property in fee simple.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment rendered by Foushee, J., 25 April, 1912; from Henderson.\nSmith, Shipman, and Justice for plaintiffs.\nMichael Schenclc for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 206,
  "last_page_order": 208
}