{ "id": 11271377, "name": "M. B. PARRISH and Wife v. M. F. HODGE", "name_abbreviation": "Parrish v. Hodge", "decision_date": "1919-10-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "133", "last_page": "135", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "178 N.C. 133" } ], "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": "171 N. C., 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270738 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 Ill., 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3340380 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/222/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 Ill., 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4701474 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/255/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 Mass., 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 458935 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/191/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Conn., 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 792016 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/conn/82/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 N. C., 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270777 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/149/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 N. C., 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657534 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/169/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N. C., 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658665 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 724", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N. C., 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654165 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 N. C., 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655395 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 N. C., 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270410 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N. C., 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660226 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 N. C., 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11254759 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N. C., 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270738 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0420-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 384, "char_count": 6714, "ocr_confidence": 0.488, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.277006297590142e-08, "percentile": 0.4788472223670183 }, "sha256": "a261173ab4c2ddae433ccb336fbd123e5b12471f28399e24e336738a12ca943f", "simhash": "1:fb0d8b7a4bfc3462", "word_count": 1197 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:08.818827+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "M. B. PARRISH and Wife v. M. F. HODGE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hoke, J.\nThe facts affecting the validity of the title offered are as follows: \u201cThe land in question was owned by J. A. Norris and on 4 June, 1901, said J. A. Norris and wife, Z. A. Norris, conveyed the same, reserving a life estate, to Hattie I. Norris (now Wade) habendum and warranty as follows: \u2018To have and to hold the aforesaid tract of land to Hattie I. Norris and heirs of her body or issue, to their only use and behoof forever.\u2019\n\u201cAnd the said James A. Norris and wife, Z. A. Norris, covenant with said Hattie I. Norris, heirs of her body, 'that they are seized of said lands in fee simple; that the same are free and clear from all encumbrances, and that they will warrant and defend the title to same against the claims of all persons whatsoever.\u201d\nThat on 25 November, 1912, the life tenants, James A. and Z. A. Norris, his wife, and also Hattie I. Wade, executed a deed in fee for said land to plaintiffs.\nIt thus appears that the question in controversy depends on the estate conveyed to Hattie I. Norris by the deed from J. A. Norris and wife, and on the facts presented we concur in the ruling of his Honor that the deed conveyed an estate of absolute ownership in remainder. And the life tenants and Hattie I. and her husband James having joined in the deed conveying the land in fee to plaintiffs, the title offered is a good one, and defendant must comply with the contract of purchase.\nUnder our statute converting estates tail into estates in fee simple (Rev., sec. 1758), this habendum to Hattie I. Norris, \u201cto have and to hold the aforesaid tract of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, to her and the heirs of her body or issue, to their only use and iehoof forever\u201d created an estate in fee, it being clear that the words \u201cor issue\u201d were intended as synonymous with \u201cheirs of the body\u201d and to have the same significance as to the character of the estate conveyed. Revis v. Murphy, 172 N. C., 579; O\u2019Neal v. Borders, 170 N. C., 483; Perrett v. Bird, 152 N. C., 220, and cases cited. This appears not only from the language of the habendum indicating that an estate of inheritance was intended for Hattie, but the interpretation is emphasized by the condition of the parties and the warranty clause, showing that an estate of absolute ownership was being presently conveyed, and Hattie, the grantee named, then unmarried and without children, being evidently the only one considered or who was then in a position to take and hold the interest.\nIn Ford v. McBrayer, 171 N. C., 420, to which we were referred by counsel in support of defendant\u2019s position, it is fully recognized that the word \u201cissue\u201d is not infrequently construed to mean lineal descendants and the equivalent of the \u201cheirs of the body.\u201d And while it is said in that case that the courts rather lean to the position that the word should be considered as a word of purchase in the sense of children, etc., this was said in reference to an instrument involving an application of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, where, in pursuance of a public policy prevalent at the time the rule was established, a life estate, given in express terms to the first taker, was entirely disregarded, and a rule which as well stated in the opinion the \u201cCourts were loath to extend.\u201d And in Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N. C., 344, another decision where an estate for life was given the first taker, the application of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case was denied by reason of additional words appearing in the limitation in remainder to the \u201cheirs of the body,\u201d and tending to show that these words were not used in the general sense of all takers by inheritance, the significance required for a proper application of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, and for that reason the estate for life was allowed to stand as written in the devise.\nBut in our ease, while a life estate is reserved to the grantor, there is no life estate given to Hattie I. Norris, the first and only grantee in remainder, but the estate and interest is conveyed to said grantee \u201cto have and to hold the aforesaid tract or parcel of land and all the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, to the said Hattie I. Norris, the heirs of her body or issue, to their only use and behoof-forever,\u201d and in such case we see no reason why this deed should not be held to cover an estate in fee according to its evident intent. Nor why the term issue appearing in this habendum should not be allowed its natural and primary significance of \u201clineal descendants to the remotest generation,\u201d and so the \u2022 equivalent ordinarily of \u201cheirs of the body.\u201d Nobles v. Nobles, 177 N. C., 243; White v. Goodwin, 174 N. C., 724; Revis v. Murphy, 172 N. C., 579; Gold Mining Co. v. Lumber Co., 170 N. C., 273; Shuford v. Brady, 169 N. C., 224; Triplett v. Williams', 149 N. C., 394; 2 Bouvier\u2019s Law Dic. (3 Rev.), 1686-87; 2 Words and Phrases (second lines), 1213-1214, citing among other authorities Perry v. Bulkley, 82 Conn., 158; Coates v. Burton, 191 Mass., 180; Robeson v. Cochran, 255 Ill., 355; Dick v. Ricker, 222 Ill., 413.\nWe are of opinion that the deed has been correctly construed and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hoke, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J ames D. Parker for plaintiffs.", "Cr. A. Martin for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "M. B. PARRISH and Wife v. M. F. HODGE.\n(Filed 1 October, 1919.)\nEstates Tail \u2014 Statutes\u2014Fee Simple \u2014 Heirs of the Body \u2014 Issues\u2014Rule in Shelley\u2019s Case distinguished.\nWhere the grantors, reserving an estate for their lives, have conveyed \u25a0 lands by deed to H. with habendum and warranty \u201cto have and to hold to H. and heirs of her body or issue, to their only use and behoof forever,\u201d the word \u201cissue\u201d so used, and in connection with the expression, \u201cheirs of her body,\u201d is construed to be the equivalent of the latter expression, which has its natural and primary significance of \u201clineal descendants to the remotest generation,\u201d and being an estate tail, is converted into a fee simple under the statute (Rev., sec. 1758) ; and the intention of the grantor is emphasized by the fact, in this case, that H. was unmarried at the time of the conveyance, without children, and evidently the only one considered or who was then in a position to take and hold the interest. Ford v. MoBrayer, 171 N. C., 420, involving the interpretation of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, cited and distinguished.\nCONTROVERSY without action, heard before Kerr, J., at May Term, 1919, of Harnett.\nThe controversy involved the right of plaintiffs to collect the purchase money for a piece of land sold by plaintiffs to defendant which the parties agreed should depend on whether plaintiffs\u2019 deed conveyed a good title. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nJ ames D. Parker for plaintiffs.\nCr. A. Martin for defendant." }, "file_name": "0133-01", "first_page_order": 197, "last_page_order": 199 }