{
  "id": 8627739,
  "name": "B. G. CARR and Wife, BESSIE SNIPES CARR; C. A. CARR and Wife, IRENE GOODSON CARR; HESSIE CARR KEITH and Husband, RAY KEITH, v. ROY JIMMERSON (Single); HAZEL McATEE (Adult), and MILDRED GARDIN, A Minor, and ROY W. DAVIS, Guardian Ad Litem of MILDRED GARDIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carr v. Jimmerson",
  "decision_date": "1936-10-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "570",
  "last_page": "573",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 570"
    }
  ],
  "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": "209 N. C., 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221536
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0477-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 7684,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.357577154540725e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2738958912276353
    },
    "sha256": "9e7aec6303822420b44de80022c1198f47d847dc51b6dac432f5ae07d3f27e40",
    "simhash": "1:d28624370607e7cd",
    "word_count": 1328
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. G. CARR and Wife, BESSIE SNIPES CARR; C. A. CARR and Wife, IRENE GOODSON CARR; HESSIE CARR KEITH and Husband, RAY KEITH, v. ROY JIMMERSON (Single); HAZEL McATEE (Adult), and MILDRED GARDIN, A Minor, and ROY W. DAVIS, Guardian Ad Litem of MILDRED GARDIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (N. C. Code, 1935 [Michie], sec. 628[2]), is as follows: \u201cCourts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.\u201d\nSection 628 (b) is as follows: \u201cAny person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise, and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder. A contract may be construed either before or after there has been a breach thereof.\u201d Allison v. Sharp, 209 N. C., 477.\nThis action or proceeding is maintainable under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, as above set forth.\nIt is well settled that the language used in the entire instrument and setting must be considered to ascertain the intention of the makers. If possible, some effect must be given to every word of a deed and all of its provisions harmonized.\nThe court below held that the language used: \u201cDoes not manifest a clear meaning and intention to exclude the said M. B. Jimmerson and her heirs at law from the heirs of said Edward Carr, Sr., in so far as the land being conveyed was concerned and that the title conveyed thereby to Edward Carr, Sr., was a fee simple title.\u201d We think this construction of the deed correct. The meaning of the language in the deed in controversy, in the granting clause: \u201cExcept as to M. B. Jim-merson\u201d and \u201cexcept as to M. B. Jimmerson and assigns,\u201d in the haben-dum clause, is vague, uncertain, and ambiguous, and we cannot give it the construction contended for by plaintiffs, petitioners.\nThe judgment of the court below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winborne & Proctor for plaintiffs, appellants.",
      "No counsel for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. G. CARR and Wife, BESSIE SNIPES CARR; C. A. CARR and Wife, IRENE GOODSON CARR; HESSIE CARR KEITH and Husband, RAY KEITH, v. ROY JIMMERSON (Single); HAZEL McATEE (Adult), and MILDRED GARDIN, A Minor, and ROY W. DAVIS, Guardian Ad Litem of MILDRED GARDIN.\n(Filed 14 October, 1936.)\n1. Actions B g\u2014\nAn action to establish the rights o\u00ed the parties under an ambiguous deed is held, to come within provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act. N. O. Code, 628 (b).\n2. Deeds O a\u2014\nIn construing a deed, the language and the entire setting must be considered to ascertain the intention of the grantors, and, if possible, effect must be given to every word, and all its provisions harmonized.\n3. Deeds O c \u2014 Deed held not to exclude grantor from inheriting as one of the heirs of the grantee.\nGrantee\u2019s child by his first wife deeded to him lands inherited from her mother. The granting clause read to the grantee \u201cand his heirs except as to\u201d the grantor, and habendum, to the grantee \u201cand his heirs except as to\u201d the grantor. Held: The grantee took a fee simple, and the language is too vague and uncertain to exclude the grantor, or those representing her, from inheriting as one of the heirs of the grantor upon his death without disposing of the lands.\nAppeal by plaintiffs, petitioners, from Sink, J., at July Term, 1936, of McDowell.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action instituted under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act of North Carolina, seeking proper interpretation, meaning, and effect of clause in the deed in question. This appeal involves the sole question of interpreting and construing the following portions of the deed:.\n(1) In the granting clause: \u201cTo said Edward Carr, Sr., and his heirs except as to M. B. Jimmerson,\u201d and\n(2) In the habendum: \u201cTo the said Edward Carr, Sr., his heirs, except as to M. B. Jimmerson and assigns, to their only use and behoof forever.\u201d\nEdward Carr married twice and had two sets of children. His first wife died seized of the lands in question and left two children, M. B. Jimmerson and E. J. Carr. By his second wife he had four children, one of whom died without children. Edward Carr purchased the land of which his first wife died seized from their two children. In the deed from his daughter, M. B. Jimmerson, appears the provision involved in this appeal as above stated.\nThe declaratory judgment is as follows: \u201cThis cause coming on for hearing at the July Term, 1936, of the Superior Court of McDowell County, N. C., before his Honor, H. Hoyle Sink, Judge presiding, and being heard, and it appearing to the court that this is a petition for declaratory judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act of North Carolina, for the construction of a deed from M. B. Jimmerson and husband, M. Austin Jimmerson, to Edward Carr, Sr., dated the 13th day of October, 1898, and recorded in Book 26, at page 583 of the deed records of McDowell County, N. 0., all as is set forth in the petition, and the court finding as facts from the record that all persons having or claiming to have any interest, which will be affected by the declaration, have been made parties to this proceeding; that the defendants Roy Jimmerson, Hazel McAtee, and Mildred Cardin, minor, have been served with summons by publication; that Roy W. Davis has been appointed guardian ad litem of Mildred G-ardin, minor defendant, and summons has been served upon him and he has answered and the said minor and codefendants are properly in court; that the facts are as stated in the petition and are admitted by the guardian ad litem and that the defendants Roy Jimmerson and Hazel McAtee have not answered and the time for answering has expired; that no issues of fact are raised. And after hearing argument of counsel, the court is of the opinion that this is a proper case for a declaratory judgment, and the court being of opinion that the language used in granting the habendum clause in the deed from M. B. Jimmerson and husband to Edward Carr, Sr., specifically described in paragraph 8 of the petition, does not manifest a clear meaning and intention to exclude the said M. B. Jimmerson and her heirs at law from the heirs of said Edward Carr, Sr., in so far as the land being conveyed was concerned, and that the title conveyed thereby to Edward Carr, Sr., was a fee simple title, and that upon his death the title acquired by him under said deed passed to and vested in his heirs at law without exception, and that the heirs at law of M. B. Jimmerson inherited the part which their ancestor, M. B. Jimmerson, would have inherited had she survived the said Edward Carr, Sr.: It is therefore considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed that by proper construction of the language of the said deed from M. B. Jimmerson and husband to Edward Carr, Sr., hereinbefore described, the said Edward Carr, Sr., became vested in fee simple of the title conveyed thereby and that upon his death the title to such of the lands conveyed thereby, as had not been conveyed by him, descended to the heirs at law of Edward Carr under the rules of the statutes of descent without exception. It is further ordered that petitioners shall pay the cost of this action, including an allowance of $10.00 to Roy W. Davis, as guardian ad litem.\nH. Hoyle SiNic, Judge presiding.\u201d\nThe plaintiffs, petitioners, excepted to the judgment as signed, assigned error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nWinborne & Proctor for plaintiffs, appellants.\nNo counsel for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0570-01",
  "first_page_order": 636,
  "last_page_order": 639
}