{ "id": 11275573, "name": "John Reeves et ux. et al. v. Thomas Reeves et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Reeves v. Reeves", "decision_date": "1830-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "386", "last_page": "392", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "1 Dev. Eq. 386" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "16 N.C. 386" } ], "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": 876, "char_count": 11457, "ocr_confidence": 0.271, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.159346925587524e-07, "percentile": 0.863188548830453 }, "sha256": "4774145a951a394c299b43f88291b864c4f49c056386e521cb8be1a34d38da31", "simhash": "1:157020a39b6f3c37", "word_count": 2138 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:17.309620+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "John Reeves et ux. et al. v. Thomas Reeves et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Ruffin, Judge.\n\u2014 The construction of the will cannot admit >>\u00ed a doubt. It trey -\u00a1ec?i si ngukir enough, that the te-tator bh-aid, in a clause intended to pass many ne-gr-r-., expressly mention but one of them, li is argued from thence, that, he had not animnm dispouendi as to those not mentioned. But it is to be remembered, that every testator is pr esumed not to intend to die intestate, as to any part of his estate; and therefore that a residuary clause is always, unless expressly restrained, held to pass whatever is not otherwise disposed of. If there Was nothing p.irtr \u00ablar therefore in this will, the'e could he no question. But there stems to have been more than ordinary anxieiy in the testator\u2019s inind, that this meaning should be given to his will; for after giving all the balance o\u00ed his pioperty to Moses, he declares that he desires \u00edhis'-o be peo \u00a1e.rly understood, and this* i!l n\u00bb. peaH that b . m\u2018*aning is, that \u00abIfiises :d\u00bb di vw property *\u20194\"1 pt the lam\u00ed given to Am- C n cly this tai:'* ,-JL \\ he re-all iiis\nTh ni as \u00edo \u00ed!r> p ero' evidence and answer n* die ud-\u00abli. \u00a1'e -.;. . ; ; i j,Y tib\u00ed CO !S\u00dc'\u00bf;c:\u00cd < i) <-\u00ed \u00a1ble. th.it the \u00bbd.>'\u00bbrtiii\u00fa>y ,v i \u25a0 m >\u00abr\u00f3bate of the will, t.. make the most of it be'bre (!:.\u00ab\u2022 \u00a1\u00a1c \" who, if sato-Seil s-f any fraud, might have !hun\u00abS n.ri .o bo tii\u00ae test \u00abtor\u2019s w:?!, and part not. But it ,. o\u00ab\u00abS:l in* '\u2022xlreniely dangerous, entirely too much s.-\u00bb, -v, sy, tk-t the testa, tor did not dev ise, because, in law. the paper would pass a larger estate, and more property, than \u25a0vitoe-\\,e\\s supposed i;\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022 nnher of it meant. The meaning'jf si,e testator is to be judged of by his vfird\" ; and they mtst ni\u00bbud. unless it be shown, tiiai kj \u00bb\u00ab8 imposed on, ii'.'C did not know tiiey weie in his wiki; or knowing that \u00dc) j* were \u00bfhere, ihat he had been induced by undue influence to execute it against hr\u00bb own wishes: which goes on quite a different ground, namely, weasness. I lay out of ihe ca.se the depositions, because liu-y go only to p=a. *e };>\u2022 \u2022; intentions, and are rout! auunocy. The Case then stands <>u the answer of tin administrator.\nThai repre.nents, tii it the testator did not intend to be\u00bb \u00abjiietith \u00abu i -\u25a0 i\u2022 i uf his slaves ; but oever'heless made his will win\u00bb \u00ab1 general ekuse. which dies pass them. The subject, was pressed on hisnotirc several times; and he ordered, that nothing should he said upon it in the will; and declared, :iiat when they were recovered, ne intended them to be divided amongst his other brothers and sisters, lu t Ive executed his will; and that in his senses, and without imposition, as must he taken now from the solemn probate. The two positions cannot stand together; and <4; the two, tii at founded on evidence the more fallacious must yield. This is not at all like the cases of Oldham v. Lichford (2 Vern. 506) and Barrow v. Greenough (3 Vesey 152). In each of them, the testator intended to enlarge certain legacies, and with that view to alter his will. This he communicated to the devisees and residuary legatees to be affected thereby; and each promised the testator, if he .would not make the alteration, that his wish should be observed 5 and in confidence thereof, the testator suffered things to remain as they were. Now this was a plain engagement, in the nature of a contract; and it would have been a gross fraud, if not performed, to have drawn the testator into such a trap. In the latter case, much of the proof appeared in writing; being contained in a letter from the legatee to Ihe testator. X am not certain, that the first case would, at this day, be supported; because the evidence was wholly in parol. Not because of the statute of frauds merely 5 because there can be no doubt, that a fraud or a mistake is without that statute; but because such a fraud, or a mistake of that nature, ought to be made out by the strongest possible proof j and I do not know that, weighing the evidence judicially, any parol proof would avail to over-set a written will, left uncancelled, or unrevoked by the testator. But here it is quite another matter. This is no attempt to raise a trust in the legatee, upon the ground of any fraud or promise by him. On the contrary, it is plainly and merely to aUer a will by parol proof, that the testator used broader words than expressed his infention. it does not even go to the extent of showing, that the testator did not know what words he used ; but only that he did not know the sense of them. The will can - not be contradicted, nor the construction thus varied upon parol proof. I call the evidence parol, although it is contained in the answer of the draughtsman of the will, and the now administrator of the testator. He has no interest in the matter, as he derives no benefit under the will. He is a mere executor in trust, and therefore his answer is no more than the deposition of another witness. And this very case exemplifies strongly the wisdom of, the general rule, as to the strength and extent of the proofs, wkkh Courts ought to require in such cases.\u2014 Here comes forward a Defendant, and admits she -Plaintiff's \u00ab\u2019.ase. It turns out, that when this Defendant, as administrator, was suing a third paiuy fot the very ne-grees now in dispute, his title to theta was made out by the evidence of the present Plaintiff, who then swore he liad no interest, as the residuary clause of the will passed the negroes to another person. No sooner are the ne-groes recovered upon that, testimony, than lie asserts the will to fee invalid, because the testator was non compos mentis, Failing in that, his nest step is to assert a di\u00bb rect ownership, by way of trust, on the ground, that the testator did not know the meaning of his own will j and relies upon the answer of the administrator, who is ids son, to show it. No one can fail to belie*/? tor a moment, that this whole career had bees, marked out between this father and sow, from the beginning. The will is permitted to stand undisputed, while the father\u2019s competency depends on it. The effort then is to get clear of it altogether, because it serves their turn no longer, Next and lastly, it is to make out a mistake in it, by the admission of the Defendant Who could hesitate is anticipate the admission ? it happens here, that the combination is easily detected. I am apt to conclude, that it almost as certainly exists in every other case of this sort, though it may be concealed by a veil not qu\u00edte as transparent. At all events, it may easily exist, and elude discovery, and therefore ought to be suspected., Men in their senses are in little danger of giving away more property in their wills, than they intended ; ami upon a change of mind, are ready enough to express if in the will itself. But if if were otherwise, it is better that a particular mischief should be suffered, than a g& \u2022heral inconvenience introduced. Th$ proof ough$ to is\u00ab^ {\u00a1s clear as dev. It ought to shed a blaze * f light, un--0,'Bnirid by a single cloud of doubt, upon the very point of controversy.\nThe bill must bp dismissed with costs, as to all the Defendants, but the administrator, Thomas Reeves. He, being a party in interest and feeling with the Plaintiff must be content to pay his own costs.\nPer Curiam.\n\u2014 Decree accordingly.", "type": "majority", "author": "Ruffin, Judge. Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "JVhsA, for the Plaintiffs.", "Badger, for (he children of Moses Lynch." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "John Reeves et ux. et al. v. Thomas Reeves et al.\nFrom Orange.\nEvery 1 estator is presumed not to intend to die intestate, as io any part of his estate. Therefore, a residuary clause, unless \"vpresslv restrained, always passes whatever is not otherwise disposed of,\nParol evidence is inadmissible to prove, that the intention of the testator was not properly expressed in the will; or that he used words., the meaning of which he did not understand,\nThe Plaintiffs in this bill averred, tiiat Thomas Lynch duly made and published his last will \u2014 whereby, after devising three hundred acres of land to his brother Jesse Lynch, he proceeded as follows: \u201c I give all the balance \u00ab of my laud, with the appurtenances thereof to my bro- \u201c ther Moses. I also give, him my negro man Jim, with \u201c all my stock of all kinds, with tiie balance of ail my \u00ab property, to my brother Moses. That the second clause '\u2022s \u00fcf \u00edbi.\" ns,!' iasi \\\\V.'\u00a1 and \u00edebtuiyni. -nay T pronoriy \u25a0; ursdeiv.'\u00edf.' !s I v\u00fasb mv broi\u00f1ai\u2018 ^Sos\u00eds t<\u00bb h-Tait al! id7 \u00edS jmiperlv, eATey! the three hundred aere . e\u00ed \u2019asid men-liosic'd c:,s fb.* \u00ediivt cb\u00edijw. ?;ivoi3 t> \u00a1ay Eu-cfne\u00bf\u2018 Thu\u00ed a'\u00ab ejsr-oi\u00ed.\u00eded bis brother \u00abJSc\u00eds \u00edea ro\u00ed coy wiio dy-\u00edrs'j shus-ib r\u00eduv Ni^1- tes\u00edsuor, \u00cd\u00cd\u00ed\u00edi w\u00edU v/;vi iuOvCi by the \u00edMend.-uJ, vs, wit\u00a9 look o;it letiere -jT adraji\u00faetm-clon,, v-'iS\u00dci \u00edm ni!I a\u00bb\u00bb.e;Kch Thai ai U\u00a1e \u00edic;:\u00ab'\u00edy i Un\u00ed they v\u00edcm-, iir.i \u00abi) ids at:fl hn ncm* ihfcisdcd Id trouble Lins-sr!f about them \u2014 -that if ha liad che;\u00bb \u00far p;.;iOH4:>i;\u00ednp I\u00edu should Hu\u00ed b-atc \u00edbera tu L'b \u00ed\u00edxU\u00edie\u00bb\u2019 Jluee;;,, and that T they wm recovered, iS\u00bb\u00aby would be divided amon# htu odio;- brekkers and \u00a1\u00a1\u00bfefes-s. Thai after the death e? \u00edh\u00ed, te\u00ed^ntor\u00bb \u00a1u\u00f1\u00ed wi esnitraencat\u00ed fot* the said \u00a1davee by \u00fce-A'ti-btu\u00ed ileevcs\u00bb wi\u00fceh \u00abivrr.uurU'd iss ki,s fuvoiv.,\nTlio Pkiutiff\u00ed were the brothers and a\u00edslen,, suri $E,t ')1\u00a1\u2018'.\u00ed\u00ed;.h;\u00cd\u00ed, of the \u2018';\u00ed;..-\u00edy of iba \u00edvit\u00eda\u00edosy Tv\u00edso cred '.vi;;I; mi i \u25a0\u25a0\u00ed'.'.v, nnd n*\u00a1\u00ed3\u00bbirr?ril, '\u00bf\u2019bo oi\u00edsep Bcfeudesdoj bo - \u2018\u00a1ido;; \u00ediseves, were the children of Worn, the r^s\u00eddiisey TSi\"; Pkintifts coutcndtxL tLai the aeyreef, a-,. C\u00edsvorcd bj the IMemburi Heaven, did not \u00a1>:ss ne a pin-;., of the reubbie of \u00bblie testatoi'ds catate \u2014 becauce ike woniw of the residuary clause were fyewral- -05*. if tiiev did ]>.iso by itn that It Wes drafted go as ?o ?acb;?le tfieiR ay misukc.\nThe sixi\u00edcifi\", a\u00edMi^'h\u00ed; an accotiitt of \u00a1he uegroec rec.is-vwd by the? ail\u00abuitii.strater, and of their Sure, \u00bf\u00abd f \u25a0u.k'.\u2019ii.ieti! \u00abvli\u00able of the- \u00abase made fey thn 7j$\u00bb> .!\u00a3,\nThe other Defendants denied tlie conversation alleged have taken place between tlie testator and the Defendant, Reeves, send averred, that on the trial of the suit ^ \u2018**!n * the m'groeS now claimed, th*. Plaintiff, John Reeves, who was the fuller of the D'fondant, Thomas Reeves, was offered as a witness, and on his voir dire, swore he was not interested in the event of that suit, as the. negroes, if recovered, passed by the ; esidu-ary ciaos - of the \u00abtestator\u2019s will, to his brotlnr Moses, They also averred, which was admitted to be the fact, that an issue of devisavit vel non, as to the will of the testator, betw pen the Plaintiffs and the. Defendant, Reeves, had been found in the affirmative.\nReplications were taken to the answers. The testimony was principally confined to some declarations of the testator, as to his intentions iri disposing of his property, made before the execution of the will.\nJVhsA, for the Plaintiffs.\nBadger, for (he children of Moses Lynch." }, "file_name": "0386-01", "first_page_order": 396, "last_page_order": 402 }