{
  "id": 8659993,
  "name": "W. A. ROBESON et al. v. C. MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robeson v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1915-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "388",
  "last_page": "390",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 N.C. 388"
    }
  ],
  "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": "85 N. C., 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276888
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0059-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N. C., 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274891
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/27/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N. C., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650307
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656795
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. C., 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657877
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271820
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 N. C., 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 4258,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4995082970336857e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6653837733396812
    },
    "sha256": "7743dc9de89eec1902d8a16ebbabf995b660b4860b973c24b1b5377748454bb9",
    "simhash": "1:e0318b66185c2335",
    "word_count": 769
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:21.378028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. ROBESON et al. v. C. MOORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HoKE, J.\nThe immediate grantor of plaintiffs was James G. Taylor, devisee of the tract of land in question, under the will of his father, Jesse Erwin Taylor, and, on the facts agreed, the title offered was properly made to depend upon the construction of the will of said Jesse, in terms as follows:\n\u201cItem; 5. I loan to James G. Taylor during the term of his natural life the following described tract of land, beginning at-a gum in Bee Branch, Moye P. Taylor\u2019s corner, and running along said Taylor\u2019s line 42%oo chains; thence S. 55 W. to the line of the lands devised to my daughter, Mollie Smith, in Item 4; thence along said line and along Julian H. Purvis\u2019s line and Mrs. Euth Taylor\u2019s line and M. P. Taylor\u2019s line to a dead elm in Bee Branch; thence up said branch to the first station; containing 190 acres, more or less; and at the death of said James G. Taylor I give and devise the said land to his heirs at law in fee simple forever.\u201d\nThe case states that James G. Taylor is now living and has two children, and defendant contends that, under said clause, the devisee took only a life estate.\nIt is established by repeated decisions of the Court that the rule in Shelley\u2019s case is still recognized in this jurisdiction, and where the same obtains it does so as a rule of property without regard to the intent of the grantor or devisor. Jones v. Whichard, 163 N. C., 243; Price v. Griffin, 150 N. C., 523; Edgerton v. Aycock, 123 N. C., 134; Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N. C., 170; Starnes v. Hill, 112 N. C., 1.\nIn Jones v. Whichard a very accurate statement of the rule is given, with approval from Preston on Estates, as follows: \u201cWhen a person takes an estate of freehold, legally or equitably, under a deed, will, or other writing, and in the same instrument there is a limitation by way of remainder, either with or without interposition of another estate of an interest of the same legal or equitable quality to his heirs, or heirs of bis body, as a class of persons to take in succession, from generation to generation, tbe limitation to tbe beirs entitles tbe ancestor to tbe whole estate.\u201d\nIt is further held here and elsewhere that, in tbe construction of a will, tbe word \u201clend\u201d will be taken to pass tbe property to which it applies in tbe s^me manner as tbe words \u201cgive\u201d and \u201cdevise,\u201d unless it is manifest that tbe testator intended otherwise. Sessoms v. Sessoms, 144 N. C., pp. 121-124, citing Cox v. Marks, 27 N. C., 361; King v. Utley, 85 N. C., 59, and other cases.\nApplying tbe principles as approved and stated in these cases, we think it clear that plaintiff\u2019s grantor, James G-. Taylor, took a fee-simple estate, tbe devise giving him an estate in tbe property for life and then to bis beirs general to take in succession forever.\nThere is no error, and tbe judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HoKE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. W. Stubbs and A. A. Dunning for plaintiff.",
      "Glayton Moore for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. ROBESON et al. v. C. MOORE.\n(Filed 24 February, 1915.)\n1. Estates \u2014 Rule in Shelley\u2019s Case.\nThe rule in Shelley\u2019s case is a rule of property without regard to the intent of the grantor or devisor, and is recognized as such and applied in the courts of this State in proper instances.\n2. Wills \u2014 Interpretation\u2014\u201cLend\u201d\u2014Words and Phrases.\nIn the construction of a will, the word \u201clend\u201d will be taken to pass the property to which it applies in the same manner as the words \u201cgive\u201d and \u201cdevise,\u201d unless it is manifest that the testator intended otherwise.\n3. Estates \u2014 Limitations\u2014Rule in Shelley\u2019s Case.\nWhere, under a will, a tract of the testator\u2019s land is \u201cloaned\u201d to T.. during the term of his natural .life, and at his death it is devised to his heirs at law in fee simple, the rule in Shelley\u2019s case applies and T. takes the land in fee simple.\nAppeal by defendant from Ferguson, J., at December Term, 1914, of Martin.\nControversy submitted without action.'\nOn the bearing it appeared that plaintiffs, having contracted to sell and convey to defendant a certain piece of land at a stated price, defendant refused to comply with the contract, claiming that rthe title offered was defective.\nOn the facts agreed upon, the court, being of opinion that deed tendered would convey a good title, gave judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nH. W. Stubbs and A. A. Dunning for plaintiff.\nGlayton Moore for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0388-01",
  "first_page_order": 444,
  "last_page_order": 446
}