{
  "id": 8653844,
  "name": "B. T. STARLING and Wife v. JAMES H. NEWSOM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Starling v. Newsom",
  "decision_date": "1920-12-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "440",
  "last_page": "441",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "180 N.C. 440"
    }
  ],
  "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": "112 N. C., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650307
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/112/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N. C., 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650042
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/101/0162-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2266,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3406893606538451
    },
    "sha256": "9730f99ef6c4364ed3c4af6cc334940062ea8f1789628bd1b089e2201c79178d",
    "simhash": "1:c30b9b33e30fc7a5",
    "word_count": 407
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. T. STARLING and Wife v. JAMES H. NEWSOM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nIt appears that on 9 Eebruary, 1917, John A. Scott and wife executed to Susan Ida Starling a deed for certain lands to said Susan Ida Starling \u201cfor life, and after ber death to the beirs of her body in fee, to their only use and behoof.\u201d\nThe question presented is, Does the grantee take a fee simple under the rule in Shelley\u2019s case? This language appears in the introductory \u25a0or titular part of the deed, and it also appears in the habendum, clause.\nIt is clear that under the habendum clause the rule in Shelley\u2019s case \u25a0applies, and Susan Ida Starling takes the fee simple, and having such, she, with the jointure of her husband, can convey a good and indefeasible title. Leathers v. Gray, 101 N. C., 162; Starnes v. Hill, 112 N. C., 1.\nThe fact that the same language appears in the introductory clause \u25a0can certainly make no difference. The learned counsel for the defendant .\u25a0admits that \u201clooking at the habendum clause alone it would seem that the rule in. Shelley\u2019s case applies, and that a fee is conveyed.\u201d But the \u25a0defendant contends that as it appears in the introductory clause, \u201cto 'Susan Ida Starling, of the second part, for life, and after her death to the heirs of her body in fee,\u201d and looking at the deed from its \u201cfour \u25a0corners,\u201d that it takes this case out of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, and that it comes under the exceptions to the rule.\nAs the language is the same in both the introductory clause and the habendum, we fail to see the force of this contention.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "II. G. Connor, Jr., and Bryce Little for plaintiff.",
      "W. A. Finch for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. T. STARLING and Wife v. JAMES H. NEWSOM.\n(Filed 1 December, 1920.)\nDeeds and Conveyances \u2014 Rule in Shelley\u2019s Case \u2014 Heirs of the Body\u2014 Estates.\nAn estate to S. \u201cfor life, and after her death to the heirs of her body in fee, to their only use and behoof,\u201d in the habendum clause of the deed, conveys to S. a fee-simple estate, under the rule in Shelley\u2019s ease, and the fact that this same language appears in the introductory part does not bring the case without the rule, there being no expression elsewhere in the deed to affect this interpretation.\nControversy without action, heard by Granmer, J., at Fall Term, 3920, of \"Wilson.\nFrom the judgment rendered defendant appealed.\nII. G. Connor, Jr., and Bryce Little for plaintiff.\nW. A. Finch for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0440-01",
  "first_page_order": 498,
  "last_page_order": 499
}