{ "id": 8657377, "name": "E. A. DANIEL, Jr., v. MARTHA A. HARRISON", "name_abbreviation": "Daniel v. Harrison", "decision_date": "1918-02-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "120", "last_page": "121", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "175 N.C. 120" } ], "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": "173 N. C., 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269189 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 N. C., 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270474 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/163/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 N. C., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656217 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/159/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 N. C., 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658941 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/136/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N. C., 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N. C., 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658935 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/144/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 N. C., 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271820 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 N. C., 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650042 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/101/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 N. C., 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652097 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/142/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268552 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0023-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 283, "char_count": 4275, "ocr_confidence": 0.477, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2499328114489864e-07, "percentile": 0.6098291830913695 }, "sha256": "17a62b2f87cab65ee70d5e6baa4bd341bd40e9187359ee9a9901838b34d62bd9", "simhash": "1:a80a8db0886834cf", "word_count": 799 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:50:36.007196+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "CiARK, O. J., did not sit on the hearing of this case." ], "parties": [ "E. A. DANIEL, Jr., v. MARTHA A. HARRISON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Brown, J.\nThe purpose of this proceeding is to determine' the title to a tract of land which the plaintiff contracted to sell to. defendant. The defendant declined to accept the deed and to pay the purchase money, alleging that the plaintiff could not convey an estate in fee.\nThe defendant\u2019s contention is based upon the language in a deed from Elizabeth Robbins to C. M. Daw, constituting a link in plaintiff\u2019s chain of title. The case agreed is as follows:\n\u201cThe land was conveyed by the said Elizabeth Robbins, by deed dated 3 March, 1909, unto the said O. M. Daw, 'during his natural life, and then to the lawfully begotten heirs of the said C. M. Daw\u2019s body, and also to Fannie A. Daw (wife of C. M. Daw) during her widowhood,\u2019 reserving to Elizabeth Robbins a life estate, and the words quoted occur in the premises of the deed, and in the habendum, the words used are -'to C. M. Daw during his natural life, then to the lawful begotten heirs of the said O. M. Daw\u2019s body and also to Fannie A. Daw during her widowhood.\u2019 Elizabeth Robbins is now dead and C. M. Daw and wife, Fannie A. Daw, are both living and have children.\u201d\nIt is scarcely necessary to discuss the merits of this controversy, as this Court has so often and so recently held that the words of the deed to Daw convey a fee simple estate.\nWe content ourselves with citing a few of the adjudications bearing on the subject. \u201cTo my grandson during the term of his natural life, then to the lawful heirs of his body, in fee; on failing, of said lawful heirs of his body, then to his right heirs in fee,\u201d was held to pass a fee simple to the grandson, Tyson v. Sinclair, 138 N. C., 23; \u201cTo A the use and benefit and profit during his natural life and to the lawful heirs of his body after his death,\u201d held to pass a fee simple, Perry v. Hackney, 142 N. C., 368; \u201cTo P during ber natural life, and after ber death to tbe begotten heirs of ber body,\u201d held to pass fee, Leathers v. Grey, 101 N. C., 162; \u201cTo A for life and at bis death bis surviving heirs,\u201d held to pass fee simple, Price v. Griffin, 150 N. C., 523; \u201cTo S. and tbe lawful heirs of bis body forever,\u201d held to pass fee, Sessoms v. Sessoms, 144 N. C., 121; \u201cTo one during bis natural life and at bis death to bis bodily heirs,\u201d conveys a fee, Chamberlee v. Broughton, 120 N. C., 171; \u201cTo A, and if be marries and has a lawful heir, they have this land,\u201d held to pass fee, Ex Parte Cooper, 136 N. C., 130; \u201cTo husband and wife during their natural lives, afterwards to wife\u2019s heirs forever,\u201d conveys fee to wife subject to life estate of husband, Cotton v. Mosely, 159 N. C., 1. Harrington v. Grimes, 163 N. C., 76.\nTbe latest decision is Smith v. Smith, 173 N. C., 124, construing tbe will of Joshua Smith containing this clause: \u201cI loan to my son D. L. Smith two tracts of land to have during bis life, at bis death to bis bodily heirs and to bis wife her lifetime or widowhood,\u201d etc. Tbe language of tbe will was held to pass a fee. This case appears to be on \u201call fours\u201d with tbe case at bar.\nThere are cases where the words \u201cbodily heirs\u201d or \u201cheirs of the body\u201d have been held to mean children. It will be found in those cases that the context of the instrument construed plainly indicated that the words were used as descriptio personarium merely indicated a purpose to limit the estate to the children rather than to the heirs generally. In such case the Rule in Shelley\u2019s case does not apply.\nAffirmed.\nCiARK, O. J., did not sit on the hearing of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Brown, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "E. A. Daniel, Jr., for Plaintiff.", "Small, MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "E. A. DANIEL, Jr., v. MARTHA A. HARRISON.\n(Filed 20 February, 1918.)\nWills \u2014 Estates\u2014Bodily Heirs \u2014 Rule in Shelley\u2019s Case.\nThe donor in a conveyance of land reserved a life estate in himself, then to D. \u201cduring his natural life and then to the lawfully begotten heirs of said D.\u2019s body, and to F. (wife of D.) during her widowhood\u201d; Held,, the use of the words heirs of D.\u2019s body were not descriptio personarkm so as to indicate his children, and D. takes the fee simple, under the Rule in Shelley\u2019s ease, after the falling in of the preceding particular estates.\nCONTROVERSY: without action, submitted to Bond, J., at December Term, 1917, of Beaufort.\nFrom the judgment rendered defendant appealed.\nE. A. Daniel, Jr., for Plaintiff.\nSmall, MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman for defendant." }, "file_name": "0120-01", "first_page_order": 174, "last_page_order": 175 }