{
  "id": 8690309,
  "name": "James H. Martin v. Daniel Gould, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Gould",
  "decision_date": "1832-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Dev. Eq. 305"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. 305"
    }
  ],
  "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": 185,
    "char_count": 2392,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.431,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.236230532262284e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8680123821890774
    },
    "sha256": "c3ecd549a1f3c02fb567081a15530e26562baccb52ca4d496cacc6871aedda47",
    "simhash": "1:9dca82b09e0ff31f",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:28.297091+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James H. Martin v. Daniel Gould, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EufitN, Judge.\nProbably upon the authorities the construction of the residuary clause, standing by itself is, that the grand sons do not take as a class, but each of the three named take an equal share with the uncle. But what is doubtful here, is cleared up by the clause immediately preceding, which gives out of the aggregate fund' before the division, when the money for the land shall be collected, the average price of 100 acres to Daniel the son, \u201c in order to make him compensation for 100 acres which I gave to my son Malachi.>> This shows that the testator meant to deal equally between his two sons ; and to make the children of his deceased one stand in their father\u2019s stead, and that the grand sons take their share as grandsons. Upon the whole will therefore it must be declared, that Daniel the son of the testator is entitled to one half the residue, and the three grand sons to the other half, to be equally divided between them, as they shall come of age. And the costs of this suit must be paid out of the fund in the hands of the executor.\nPer Curiam.- \u2014 Decree accordiNgey.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EufitN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mendenhall for the plaintiff.",
      "No counsel appeared for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James H. Martin v. Daniel Gould, et al.\nIa a gift by will to a child and grandchildren \u201c equally to be divided,\u201d each of the latter take equally with the former, unless a different intention is inferred from other parts of the will.\nThis bill was filed by the executor of Daniel Gould, sen. to have a construction put upon the will of his testator. The will after giving all his estate to his wife -for life, proceeded thus : \u201c after her death it is my desire \u201c that all my estate both real and personal shall be sold \u201c at twelve months credit, and when the money is c\u00f3l- \u201c lected for the land, the average value of one hundred \u201cacres to he given to my son Daniel in order to make \u201c him compensation for one hundred acres of land \u201c which I gave to my son Malachi Gould. All the rest \u201cof the money that is left, to be equally divided between \u201c my son Daniel and my three grandsons to wit, Ac. (na~ \u201c ming them,) to them and their heirs forever.\u201d The defendants were the testator\u2019s son Daniel and his grandsons mentioned in the will who were the sons of Malachi. The only question was whether the residue should be divided between them equally, or whether one half should be given to Daniel and the other to the sons of Malachi.\nMendenhall for the plaintiff.\nNo counsel appeared for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 311,
  "last_page_order": 312
}