{
  "id": 8661248,
  "name": "THOMPSON v. BATTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Batts",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "530",
  "last_page": "531",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 N.C. 530"
    }
  ],
  "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": "59 N. C., 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 755",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661353
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/0755-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 2964,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20769685800214607
    },
    "sha256": "50491358b7b90ce3886476613f4996d52bfa80764257ab949feadefd07730835",
    "simhash": "1:c1acb6e6064bfb81",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:05:21.378028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMPSON v. BATTS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DEFENDANTS\u2019 APPEAL.\nAllen, J.\nThe determination of the plaintiffs\u2019 appeal leaves open only one question on the appeal of the defendants, and that is whether the word \u201cchildren\u201d as used in the fourteenth item of the will of Alfred \u2022 Thompson includes grandchildren.\nThis question was very fully considered and the authorities reviewed by Justice Connor in Lee v. Baird, 132 N. C., 755, in which he says: \u201cCertainly the use of the words \u2018all of my children\u2019 by the testatrix is free from ambiguity, and the uniform current of authority in this and other courts sustains the proposition that they will not be construed to include grandchildren unless from necessity, which occurs when the will would be inoperative unless the sense of the word \u2018children\u2019 were extended beyond its natural import and when the testator has clearly shown by other words that he did not use the term \u2018children\u2019 in the ordinary, actual meaning of the word, but in a more extensive sense; that this construction can only arise from a clear intention or necessary implication, as where there are no children, but are grandchildren, or where the term children is further explained by a limitation over in default of issue.\u201d\nThe only fact appearing upon the record which might lead to a different conclusion is that there is a devise to Elmira Eatman (one of the children of the testator, who was dead at the time of making the will) for life, with remainder to her children; but it appears in the seventeenth item that provision was made for such contingencies, as the testator there says: \u201cIn all cases where I have left the estate for life, remainder to children, I mean that those who may die leaving issue before my death shall be represented by such issue and take their share; but should any die without issue, such as survive shall take.\u201d\nIt also appears, as was said in Mordecai v. Boylan, 59 N. C., 366, that \u201cThe testator clearly shows by his will that he understood the distinction between children and grandchildren,\u201d because in the fourteenth item, after providing \u201cthat the residue of my estate, both real and personal, shall be equally divided between my wife and children, except George W. Thompson and T. J. Thompson,\u201d he also says, \u201chereby giving to my granddaughter, Lena Thompson, half share of my personal estate.\u201d\nWe are therefore of opinion that grandchildren were not included among the devisees under the designation \u201cchildren.\u201d\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Allen, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMPSON v. BATTS.\n(Filed 7 April, 1915.)\nWills \u2014 Devises\u2014\u201cChildren\u201d\u2014Interpretation\u2014Grandchildren.\nA devise and bequest o\u00ed the residue of real and personal property to the \u201cwife and children\u201d of the testator will not include therein his grandchildren, unless the contrary intent is shown by necessary implication from the terms or expressions used in the will; and in interpreting the will under consideration it is held that the testator used the word \u201cchildren\u201d in its ordinary sense.\n(For plaintiff\u2019s appeal, see ante, 333.)"
  },
  "file_name": "0530-01",
  "first_page_order": 586,
  "last_page_order": 587
}