{
  "id": 8614569,
  "name": "RANTON H. JACKSON and Wife, MARY LOU JACKSON, v. W. A. POWELL and Wife, HATTIE JANE POWELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Powell",
  "decision_date": "1945-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "599",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 N.C. 599"
    }
  ],
  "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": "79 S. E., 301",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 N. C., 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270474
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/163/0076-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "219 N. C., 121",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621349
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0121-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N. C., 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625594
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "93 S. E., 446",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 N. C., 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252533
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 S. E., 121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S. E., 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652008
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/139/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S. E., 659",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N. C., 690",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654782
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0690-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 S. E., 213",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271639
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S. E., 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N. C., 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270777
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/149/0394-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 5051,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0886955425283066e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5650912466325256
    },
    "sha256": "3890552d986c0fa0076485423d771cdf1b37be5012f0dd36ad21ae323cd1b575",
    "simhash": "1:9360fa85875d7fc4",
    "word_count": 886
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:44.450219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RANTON H. JACKSON and Wife, MARY LOU JACKSON, v. W. A. POWELL and Wife, HATTIE JANE POWELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Denny, J.\nThe operative provisions of the deed under consideration purport to convey to the plaintiffs a fee simple title to the premises described therein. When real estate is conveyed to any person, the conveyance shall be construed to be in fee simple unless such conveyance in plain words shows the grantor intended to convey an estate of less dignity. G. S., 39-1; Triplett v. Williams, 149 N. C., 394, 63 S. E., 79. Moreover, as stated in Campbell v. Cronly, 150 N. C., 457, 64 S. E., 213: \u201cWhen language is used having a clearly defined legal signification, there is no room for construction to ascertain the intent; it must be given its legal meaning and effect.\u201d Therefore, the provision inserted .in plaintiffs\u2019 deed, to wit, \u201cThe grantors hereof make this conveyance to the grantees named above during their natural lifetime then to their bodily heirs to the third generation,\u201d is not repugnant to the general provisions of the deed. Bagwell v. Hines, 187 N. C., 690, 122 S. E., 659. We are not confronted with irreconcilable provisions and the necessity of deciding which is controlling, as was the case in Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N. C., 40, 51 S. E., 797; Boyd v. Campbell, 192 N. C., 398, 135 S. E., 121, and in many other similar eases. When the words \u201cbodily heirs\u201d or \u201cheirs of the body\u201d are used in a deed or will, and are not so qualified as to indicate that they were used merely as a descriptio personarum, they are equivalent to the words \u201cheirs general,\u201d Cohoon v. Upton, 174 N. C., 88, 93 S. E., 446, and Jones v. Whichard, 163 N. C., 241, 79 S. E., 503. The phrase, \u201cto the third generation,\u201d which appears in the special provision, is void, being within the rule against perpetuities. Hence the legal meaning and effect of the above provision, under the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, gave the plaintiffs a fee simple title to the property referred to herein. Bank v. Snow, 221 N. C., 14, 18 S. E. (2d), 711; Whitley v. Arenson, 219 N. C., 121, 12 S. E. (2d), 906; Bank v. Dortch, 186 N. C., 510, 120 S. E., 60; Harrington v. Grimes, 163 N. C., 76, 79 S. E., 301.\nThe judgment of the court below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Denny, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert Doub for plaintiffs.",
      "Wilson & Biclcett for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RANTON H. JACKSON and Wife, MARY LOU JACKSON, v. W. A. POWELL and Wife, HATTIE JANE POWELL.\n(Filed 21 November, 1945.)\n1. Deeds \u00a7 13a\u2014\nWhen real estate is conveyed to any person, the conveyance shall be construed to be in fee simple unless such conveyance in plain words shows the grantor intended to convey an estate of less dignity. G. S., 39-1.\n2. Deeds \u00a7 11: Wills \u00a7 31\u2014\nWhere language is used having a clearly defined legal signification, there is no room for construction to ascertain the intent; it must be given its legal meaning and effect.\n3. Deeds \u00a7 13a: Wills \u00a7 33a\u2014\nWhen the words \u201cbodily heirs\u201d or \u201cheirs of the body\u201d are used in a deed or will, and are not so qualified as to indicate that they are used merely as a deseriptio personarum, they are equivalent to the words \u201cheirs general.\u201d\n4. Deeds \u00a7 13b: Wills \u00a7 33b\u2014\nIn a deed in form a fee simple, except that immediately after the description there appears the following \u2014 \u201cThe grantors hereof make this conveyance to the grantees named above during their natural lifetime then to their bodily heirs to the third generation,\u201d the phrase \u201cto the third generation\u201d is void, being within the rule against perpetuities, hence the grantees take a fee simple title to the property conveyed, under the rule in Shelley\u2019s ease.\nAppeal by defendants from Grady, Emerqency Judqe, at September Term, 1945, of Waice.\nThis is an action for specific performance.\nThe plaintiffs agreed to sell and tbe defendants agreed to buy a certain tract of land in Swift Creek Township, Wake County, N. C., containing eighty acres, more or less. Plaintiffs obligated themselves to deliver to the defendants a good and sufficient deed with full covenants and warranty, to the premises, upon the payment of $2,500.00 on or before 13 November, 1945. Thereafter defendants notified the plaintiffs that the title to the property is defective and that they would not accept their deed.\nPlaintiffs hold title to said property as tenants by the entirety, under a deed from Dr. A. C. West and wife, Olive Pate West, dated 2 October, 1941, which instrument has been duly recorded in the office of the Begister of Deeds for Wake County, N. C., and is in the usual form for a fee simple deed with full covenants and warranty, except that immediately following the description of the property there appears the following : \u201cThe grantors hereof make this conveyance to the grantees named above during their natural lifetime then to their bodily heirs to the third generation.\u201d\nUpon the foregoing facts the court held the rule in Shelley\u2019s case applies and that plaintiffs are the owners of a fee simple title to said lands and further that the attempted limitation to the bodily heirs of the grantees to the third generation violates the rule against perpetuities. Judgment was entered accordingly; defendants appeal and assign error.\nAlbert Doub for plaintiffs.\nWilson & Biclcett for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0599-01",
  "first_page_order": 647,
  "last_page_order": 648
}