{ "id": 8630930, "name": "W. C. EDWARDS et al. v. T. B. FAULKNER", "name_abbreviation": "Edwards v. Faulkner", "decision_date": "1939-05-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "586", "last_page": "589", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "215 N.C. 586" } ], "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": "157 S. E., 793", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623702 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 S. E., 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N. C., 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660871 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/136/0460-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S. E., 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625647 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 N. C., 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N. C., 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N. C., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650307 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/112/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S. E., 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268552 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S. E., 632", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625542 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0614-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S. E., 437", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N. C., 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604650 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S. E., 85", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N. C., 670", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628473 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0670-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S. E., 660", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602797 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S. E., 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217752 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S. E., 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655644 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 S. E., 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655500 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 S. E., 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 N. C., 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654066 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/180/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 S. E., 394", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N. C., 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655802 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S. E., 503", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N. C., 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271448 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/163/0241-01" ] }, { "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" ] }, { "cite": "20 S. E., 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N. C., 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651288 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/115/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 S. E., 719", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N. C., 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627543 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Am. Dec., 447", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 Pa. St., 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 979412 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/27/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S. E., 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629890 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 S. E., 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N. C., 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268876 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0013-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S. E., 60", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N. C., 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654027 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S. E., 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N. C., 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610643 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0367-01" ] }, { "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" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 533, "char_count": 8689, "ocr_confidence": 0.504, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.481018480247124e-08, "percentile": 0.5179690012815419 }, "sha256": "4fe19b252c36c406450f27a9a7b2dd93baf898b0faadcff8960cdaf3091e4889", "simhash": "1:d326893b5a44eec5", "word_count": 1591 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.554902+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "W. C. EDWARDS et al. v. T. B. FAULKNER." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stact, C. J.\nOn the hearing, the title offered was properly made to depend upon the construction of the following clause in the will of Elizabeth Edwards:\n\u201cSecond, I give and devise all my property, personal and real, to my nephew W. C. Edwards for his life time, and to his heirs if he dies without heirs, my property goes to my Bro. R. 0. Edwards, and after his death to my nephews children H. T. Edwards, and R. L. Edwards.\u201d\nThe record discloses that W. 0. Edwards and R. L. Edwards are sons of R. C. Edwards and nephews of the testatrix; that no person by the name of \u201cH. T. Edwards\u201d is known to the parties as in any way connected with the family; that W. C. Edwards has six living children and one living grandchild, and that R. 0. Edwards died after the execution of his sister\u2019s will, leaving him surviving four children and four grandchildren.\nThe question for decision is whether W. C. Edwards takes a fee simple to the lands devised to him in the second item of his aunt\u2019s will. The answer depends upon whether the limitations in remainder are so framed as to attract the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, which obtains in this jurisdiction not only as a rule of law but also as a rule of property, Brown v. Mitchell, 207 N. C., 132, 176 S. E., 258, regardless of the particular intent of the testatrix. Allen v. Hewitt, 212 N. C., 367, 193 S. E., 275; Bank v. Dortch, 186 N. C., 510, 120 S. E., 60; Hampton v. Griggs, 184 N. C., 13, 113 S. E., 501. Indeed, the testatrix in the instant case doubtless never heard of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, which says, in substance, \u201cthat if an estate in freehold be limited to A., with remainder to bis heirs, general or special, the remainder, although importing an independent gift to the heirs, as original takers, shall confer the inheritance on A., the ancestor.\u201d Martin v. Knowles, 195 N. C., 427, 142 S. E., 313.\nThe devise in question is to W. C. Edwards \u201cfor his life time,\u201d and then \u201cto his heirs.\u201d Had the will stopped here, a typical case for the operation of the rule would have been presented, for, as said by Blade, J., in Steacy v. Rice, 27 Pa. St., 95, 65 Am. Dec., 447, \u201cthe law will not treat that as an estate for life which is essentially an estate of inheritance, nor permit anyone to take in the character of heir unless he take also in the quality of heir.\u201d Rowland v. B. & L. Assn., 211 N. C., 456, 190 S. E., 719.\nHowever, immediately thereafter the testatrix adds, \u201cif he dies without heirs, my property goes to my Bro. R. C. Edwards and after his death to my nephews children H. T. Edwards and R. L. Edwards.\u201d The brother of the testatrix, R. C. Edwards, is the father of \"W. C. Edwards, and, therefore, potentially among the heirs general of the first taker. Hence, according to a number of decisions this would seem to take the case out of the operation of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, and assign it to that class of cases of which the following may be said to be fairly illustrative: Rollins v. Keel, 115 N. C., 68, 20 S. E., 209; Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N. C., 344, 74 S. E., 15; Jones v. Whichard, 163 N. C., 241, 79 S. E., 503; Pugh v. Allen, 179 N. C., 307, 102 S. E., 394; Blackledge v. Simmons, 180 N. C., 535, 105 S. E., 202; Wallace v. Wallace, 181 N. C., 158, 106 S. E., 501; Reid v. Neal, 182 N. C., 192, 108 S. E., 769; Hampton v. Griggs, supra; Welch v. Gibson, 193 N. C., 684, 138 S. E., 25; Doggett v. Vaughan, 199 N. C., 424, 154 S. E., 660; Brown v. Mitchell, supra; Gurganus v. Bullock, 210 N. C., 670, 188 S. E., 85.\nThe distinction between this line of cases, in which it is held that the rule is not attracted by the limitations appearing therein, and the long line of decisions holding it to be applicable and firmly established as the law- of this jurisdiction, was first pointed out in Pugh v. Allen, supra, and repeated in Hampton v. Griggs, supra; Welch v. Gibson, supra; Doggett v. Vaughan, supra; Brown v. Mitchell, supra, substantially as follows: Where there is an ulterior limitation which provides that upon the happening of a given contingency, the estate is to be taken out of the first line of descent and 'then put back into the same line, in a restricted manner,'by giving it to some, but not to all, of those who presumptively would have shared in the estate as being potentially among the heirs general of the first taker, this circumstance may be used as one of the guides in ascertaining the paramount intention of the testator, and, with other indicia, it has been held sufficient to show that the words \u201cheirs\u201d or \u201cheirs of the body\u201d were not used in their technical sense. See, also, and compare Clark v. Clark, 194 N. C., 288, 139 S. E., 437; Yelverton v. Yelverton, 192 N. C., 614, 135 S. E., 632.\nThis same line of demarcation was adumbrated by Brown, J., in Tyson v. Sinclair, 138 N. C., 23, 50 S. E., 450, as follows: \u201cThe rule in Shelley\u2019s case applies and is in force in this State. Starnes v. Hill, 112 N. C., 1. It applies to devises as well as conveyances. Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N. C., 175. It applies when the same persons will take the same estate, whether they take by descent or purchase; in which case they are made to take by descent; but when the persons taking by purchase would be different or have different estate than they would take by descent from the first taker, the rule does not apply, and the first taker is confined to an estate for life, and \u2018the heirs, heirs of the body,\u2019 etc., take as purchasers. Ward v. Jones, 40 N. C., 401.\u201d\nBy this test, the cases of Benton v. Baucom, 192 N. C., 630, 135 S. E., 629 (amplified in Welch v. Gibson, supra), and Wool v. Fleetwood, 136 N. C., 460, 48 S. E., 785, cited and relied upon by plaintiffs, are assigned to the \u201capplicable\u201d line of decisions; whereas, by the same token, the instant case is assigned to the \u201cnonapplicable\u201d line.\nIt all comes to this: If the limitation in remainder carry the estate to the heirs of W. C. Edwards, as heirs, the rule in Shelley\u2019s case applies and vests the fee in the first taker; otherwise, not. Rowland v. B. & L. Assn., supra; Morehead v. Montague, 200 N. C., 497, 157 S. E., 793; Benton v. Baucom, supra.\nWe agree with the court below that the rule in Shelley\u2019s case is not applicable and that the title offered is not \u201ca good and indefeasible fee simple, merchantable title\u201d as called for in the contract between the parties. The judgment denying specific-performance will be upheld.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stact, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ben II. Neville for plaintiffs, appellants.", "L. L. Davenport for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "W. C. EDWARDS et al. v. T. B. FAULKNER.\n(Filed 10 May, 1939.)\n1. Wills \u00a7 33b\u2014\nTbe rule in Shelley\u2019s case obtains in this jurisdiction not only as a rule of law but also as a rule of property.\n2. Same\u2014\nWhere the limitation over after a life estate is to the general heirs of the first taker the rule in Shelley's ease applies, but where the limitation over designates specific heirs who are to take without including all those within that class, the rule does not apply.\n3. Same \u2014 Rule in Shelley\u2019s case held inapplicable to devise in this will.\nThe will in question devised the locus in quo to plaintiff \u201cfor his lifetime, and to his heirs if he dies without heirs, my property goes to\u201d testatrix\u2019 brother and after his death to my \u201cnephews children\u201d H. T. and R. L. Held: It appearing that testatrix left her surviving heirs other than those named in the limitation over of the fee, the rule in Shelley\u2019s ease does not apply and the devise conveys only a life estate to the first taker.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Bone, J., at November Term, 1938, of Nash.\nCivil action for specific performance.\nTbe plaintiffs, being under contract to convey a certain tract of land to tbe defendant, duly executed and tendered deed, sufficient in form to convey valid, fee simple title thereto, witb full covenants of warranty,\nand demanded payment of the purchase price as agreed. The defendant declined to accept the deed and refused to make payment, contending that the title offered was defective. Whereupon the plaintiffs instituted this action for specific performance.\nOn the hearing, a jury trial was waived and the case was submitted to the court on facts agreed.\nIt is stipulated that if in the opinion of the court, under the facts submitted, the plaintiffs are able to convey \u201ca good and indefeasible, fee simple, merchantable title\u201d to the locus in quo, judgment shall be entered for the plaintiffs; otherwise, for the defendant.\nThe court being of opinion that the plaintiffs were not vested with a good and indefeasible, fee simple, merchantable title to the land described in the contract, entered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiffs appeal, asssigning error.\nBen II. Neville for plaintiffs, appellants.\nL. L. Davenport for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0586-01", "first_page_order": 652, "last_page_order": 655 }