{ "id": 8605732, "name": "ESSIE MAY HUDSON v. J. S. HUDSON", "name_abbreviation": "Hudson v. Hudson", "decision_date": "1935-06-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "338", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "208 N.C. 338" } ], "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": "111 S. E., 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655988 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 S. E., 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621113 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S. E., 258", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623120 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 S. E., 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N. C., 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654368 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S. E., 15", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N. C., 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655395 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0344-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 249, "char_count": 3372, "ocr_confidence": 0.439, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.495768181899475e-08, "percentile": 0.4863777772372057 }, "sha256": "e9d3a89c9d669ea0484a03180c26e38f3167d4352b976fe9e6eda09b4128ba59", "simhash": "1:3a34423d1816df54", "word_count": 593 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ESSIE MAY HUDSON v. J. S. HUDSON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nPlaintiff acquired title to the locus in quo under the will of her father. The testator first devised all of his property to his wife for her life and after her death \u201cto my daughter, Essie May Hudson (the plaintiff), . . . to be hers and to her heirs, if any, and if no heirs to be equally divided with my other children.\u201d\nThe case states that the testator\u2019s widow, the life tenant, died 1 September, 1921; that the plaintiff was in the undisputed possession of the land described in the complaint at the time of the execution of the \u25a0contract sought to be specifically enforced (II October, 1934) ; that plaintiff was married in April, 1929, abandoned by her husband soon thereafter, since which time he has lived apart from her; that \u201con account of said abandonment, the written consent of ber husband, as above described, is not necessary to the validity of same\u201d (deed), under O. S., 2530, and that at the time of the execution of the contract of sale plaintiff had no children.\nWe agree with the trial court that the deed tendered by plaintiff was not sufficient to convey an indefeasible fee to the land, described therein, free and clear of the claims of all persons, whether the ulterior limitation in plaintiff\u2019s father\u2019s will be regarded as a limitation over on failure of issue, C. S., 1737, or as coming under the principle announced in Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N. C., 344, 74 S. E., 15; Walker v. Butner, 187 N. C., 535, 122 S. E., 301; Brown v. Mitchell, 207 N. C., 132, 176 S. E., 258; Massengill v. Abell, 192 N. C., 240, 134 S. E., 641; Willis v. Trust Co., 183 N. C., 267, 111 S. E., 163. Hence, the title offered was properly rejected.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "D. P. Mayberry for plaintiff.", "Hunter K. Penn for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ESSIE MAY HUDSON v. J. S. HUDSON.\n(Filed 26 June, 1935.)\nWills E X) \u2014 Devisee held not to have acquired indefeasible fee under the devise and facts of this case.\nPlaintiff\u2019s father devised the land in question to plaintiff \u201cto be hers and to her heirs, if any, and if no heirs, to be equally divided with my other children.\u201d At the time plaintiff executed deed to defendant, which was refused by him, plaintiff was married, but had been abandoned by her husband, and had no children. Held,: Plaintiff\u2019s deed did not convey the indefeasible fee to the land free and clear of the claims of all persons, whether the limitation over be regarded as a limitation over on failure of issue, O. S., 1737, or as not coming within the rule in Shelley\u2019s case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Pless, J., at February Term, 1935, of PoCKINGHAM.\nCivil action for specific performance, beard upon an agreed statement of facts.\nPlaintiff, being under contract to convey a certain tract of land to \u25a0defendant, duly executed and tendered deed therefore and demanded payment of tbe purchase price as agreed, which the defendant declined to accept and refused to make payment of the purchase price, claiming that the title offered was defective.\nIt was agreed if the plaintiff is the owner in fee of the land described in the complaint, and capable of conveying title thereto, free and clear of the claims of all persons, judgment should be entered decreeing specific performance.\nThe court, being of opinion that the plaintiff only held a defeasible fee to the land in question, gave judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nD. P. Mayberry for plaintiff.\nHunter K. Penn for defendant." }, "file_name": "0338-01", "first_page_order": 404, "last_page_order": 405 }