{
  "id": 8656061,
  "name": "CLAUDE ETHERIDGE v. EAGLES-HOUSE REALTY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Etheridge v. Eagles-House Realty Co.",
  "decision_date": "1920-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "408",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "179 N.C. 407"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 Pa., 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        976686
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/142/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 Mass., 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. Y., 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2256668
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/140/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. Y., 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        1896004
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/125/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. Y., 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2180971
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/84/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N. C., 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 4749,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5522964274278852e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6751129119883051
    },
    "sha256": "4c96a60286848071dd72f63cec34d4f6b215bfa9883320d2adf067574d923bc2",
    "simhash": "1:8723b851165c7f9b",
    "word_count": 859
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:15.491038+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CLAUDE ETHERIDGE v. EAGLES-HOUSE REALTY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nThis is an action for the construction of the words \u201cher issue\u201d in. the devise to Maud S. Bullock in item three of the Arch Bras-well will, the words of the devise being as follows: \u201cTo have and to bold unto the said Maud S. during her natural life, and after her death to her issue and their heirs.\u201d\nThe said Maud S. is about 65 years of age, and has two children, Ernest Bullock and Maud S. Bullock, who were born prior to death of testator, and the said Ernest Bullock has two children who are minors. Maud S. Bullock and her children, Ernest Bullock, and wife, and Maude Bullock, conveyed the land devised to plaintiff, who contracted to convey the same to defendant, and the qu\u00e9stion for determination is whether plaintiff can convey a good title provided the said Maud S. Bullock shall have no other child or children born unto her, and this depends upon the meaning of the words \u201cher issue/\u2019 that is, whether it means her children, or her lineal descendants.\nWaving the contingency of further children born to Maud S. Bullock, which is waived by the defendant, we are of opinion that a deed made by the said Maude S. Bullock and her children conveys a good title to the defendant for the land purchased. There are authorities that the word issue, when used in a will and unexplained by the context, may mean descendants, hut in this, as in all other cases involving the construction of wills, the intention of the testator governs.\nWhere it is held to mean descendants, it is held to mean children upon a slight indication in other parts of the will that such was the intention of the testator. Ford v. McBrayer, 171 N. C., 424; Palmer v. Horn, 84 N. Y., 516; 2 Jarman Wills, 635.\nIn Faison v. Odom, 144 N. C., 108, a devise \u201cfor the use and benefit of my son Edward during his life, and after the death of my son Edward to his issue forever, in case of his death without leaving issue, I give, devise, and bequeath unto his surviving brothers and their heirs, and in case of their death before him and leaving children, to such issue and their heirs\u201d; it is held that the word \u201cissue\u201d here means children from the construction placed on-the word by the testator himself, \u201csuch issue\u201d being a correlative term for children.\nIn this case we think it is manifest that the testator in using the words \u201cher issue\u201d meant the children of Maud S. Bullock. He devised his lands to his children, W. T. Braswell, J. C. Braswell, Mary E. Braswell, and Arch Braswell in fee, to W. T. Braswell in trust for Jas. W. for his natural life, and then to his children to be conveyed to them when the youngest becomes 21 years of age; and to Maud S., Helen Adrienna, and Alice Lee Joyner \u201cduring her natural life,, and then to her issue.\u201d In Item 5 of the will, the devise to Alice Lee Joyner was in same terms as the devise to Maude S. Bullock in Item 3. Before the death of the testator, he sold the land devised to Mrs. Joyner and made \u00e1 codicil, appointing a trustee to hold the money and directed'that the income thereof be paid to her for life, and then to be equally divided between her children.\nIt seems from an examination of the several items of the will, which it is unnecessary to set-out, that the testator uses the words issue and children as synonymous terms. The word issue is construed to mean children in Palmer v. Dunham, 125 N. Y., 68; Brishin v. Huntington, 5 Eng. Ann. Cases, 931. In that case it is held where the issue is tb take the share of a deceased parent the word is construed to mean the children of such parent. See, also, Cochrain v. Schnell, 140 N. Y., 516; King v. Savage, 121 Mass., 302; Parkhurst v. Harrower, 142 Pa., 432.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. O. Howard for \u2018plaintiff.",
      "H. G. Connor, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLAUDE ETHERIDGE v. EAGLES-HOUSE REALTY COMPANY.\n(Filed 7 April, 1920.)\nWills \u2014 Devise\u2014Estates \u2014\u201cIssue\u201d\u2014 Children \u2014 Correlative Terms \u2014 Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Eee Simple Title.\nThe intention of the testator as gathered from the terms of the will .control as to whether the word \u201cissue\u201d shall mean \u201cchildren\u201d and slight indications thereof may be sufficient to show his intention that they should have a correlative meaning; and where the devisee was a child of the testator and the disposition of other lands to his other children indicates that he meant \u201cchildren\u201d by the word \u201cissue,\u201d that meaning will be given; and a devise to testator\u2019s daughter M. during her natural life and after her death, to her issue and her heirs, the deed of M. and her children, assuming that she will not thereafter have other children, will convey a fee simple title to their grantee.\nCONTROVERSY without action, tried by Lyon, J., at March Term, 1920, of Edgecombe.\nThere was judgment for tbe plaintiff, and tbe defendant appealed.\nW. O. Howard for \u2018plaintiff.\nH. G. Connor, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 463,
  "last_page_order": 464
}