{ "id": 8614202, "name": "JAMES H. TURPIN, ELLEN BROWN, IDA BROOKS, LOTTIE BRAMLETT, FANNIE SORRELLS, A. R. MESSER, DOCK MESSER, EMELINE M. TURPIN, COLE MESSER, J. C. GIBSON, JIM MESSER and ALICE SNYDER v. MRS. M. Y. JARRETT and M. Y. JARRETT", "name_abbreviation": "Turpin v. Jarrett", "decision_date": "1946-02-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "135", "last_page": "138", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "226 N.C. 135" } ], "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": "197 S. E., 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N. C., 792", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630711 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0792-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 N. C., 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603294 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 N. C., 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626498 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0135-01" ] }, { "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": "90 S. E., 303", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 N. C., 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253921 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S. E., 957", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269527 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 N. C., 639", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614816 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0639-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S. E., 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N. C., 651", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616986 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0651-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S. E., 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605732 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S. E., 425", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622841 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0443-01" ] }, { "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": "133 S. E., 407", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617876 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S. E., 148", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N. C., 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653485 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/188/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 S. E., 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 N. C., 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655760 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S. E., 247", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N. C., 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656673 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/164/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 S. E., 507", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 N. C., 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270410 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S. E., 401", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N. C., 448", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654678 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0448-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 S. E., 731", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629830 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 S. E., 849", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621535 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S. E., 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N. C., 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654998 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 S. E., 150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655160 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S. E., 445", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N. C., 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652518 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0389-01" ] }, { "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": "147 N. C., 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269054 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/147/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 S. E., 566", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N. C., 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655453 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/151/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S. E., 736", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N. C., 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270738 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0420-01" ] }, { "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": "154 S. E., 825", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 522", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607437 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0522-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 N. C., 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 S. E., 663", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N. C., 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629525 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0204-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 566, "char_count": 8684, "ocr_confidence": 0.488, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4721413011568557e-07, "percentile": 0.6594813056668555 }, "sha256": "ce291933e8790e7b308aa6acf7469ec97690776a5f0f12222287d40eb5ca1c41", "simhash": "1:96d92df973843b9c", "word_count": 1548 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:42.041183+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JAMES H. TURPIN, ELLEN BROWN, IDA BROOKS, LOTTIE BRAMLETT, FANNIE SORRELLS, A. R. MESSER, DOCK MESSER, EMELINE M. TURPIN, COLE MESSER, J. C. GIBSON, JIM MESSER and ALICE SNYDER v. MRS. M. Y. JARRETT and M. Y. JARRETT." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Barnhill, J.\nOn this record the rule in Shelley\u2019s case is not controlling. Matthews v. Matthews, 214 N. C., 204, 198 S. E., 663; Williamson v. Cox, 218 N. C., 117, 10 S. E. (2d), 662; Paul v. Paul, 199 N. C., 522, 154 S. E., 825; Willis v. Trust Co., 183 N. C., 267, 111 S. E., 163; Ford v. McBrayer, 171 N. C., 420, 88 S. E., 736; Dawson v. Ennett, 151 N. C., 543, 66 S. E., 566; Harrell v. Hagan, 147 N. C., 111; Hampton v. Griggs, 184 N. C., 13, 113 S. E., 501.\nThe deed to Jane Messer conveyed a base or qualified fee, defeasible upon her death without \u201cbodily heirs\u201d or \u201cissue,\u201d upon the happening of which event plaintiffs would become seized and possessed of the title under the limitation over. Smith v. Lumber Co., 155 N. C., 389, 71 S. E., 445; Hutchinson v. Lucas, 181 N. C., 53, 106 S. E., 150; Thompson v. Humphrey, 179 N. C., 44, 101 S. E., 738; Willis v. Trust Co., supra; James v. Griffin, 192 N. C., 285, 134 S. E., 849; West v. Murphy, 197 N. C., 488, 149 S. E., 731.\nTo determine the effectiveness of the limitation over the roll must be called as of the date of the death of the first taker. It is so declared by statute. Ch. 7, Public Laws 1827, now G. S., 41-4; Patterson v. McCormick, 177 N. C., 448, 99 S. E., 401 (citing 26 prior decisions); Perrett v. Bird, 152 N. C., 220, 67 S. E., 507; Smith v. Lumber Co., supra; Rees v. Williams, 164 N. C., 128, 80 S. E., 247; Willis v. Trust Co., supra; Vinson v. Gardner, 185 N. C., 193, 116 S. E., 412; Dupree v. Daughtridge, 188 N. C., 193, 124 S. E., 148; Yarn Co. v. Dewstoe, 192 N. C., 121, 133 S. E., 407; Massengill v. Abell, 192 N. C., 240, 134 S. E., 641; Henderson v. Power Co., 200 N. C., 443, 157 S. E., 425; Hudson v. Hudson, 208 N. C., 338, 180 S. E., 597; Moseley v. Knott, 212 N. C., 651, 194 S. E., 100; Thames v. Goode, 217 N. C., 639, 9 S. E. (2d), 485.\nSo then we come to the primary question posed by this appeal: Do the terms \u201cbodily heirs\u201d and \u201cissue\u201d as used in the deed include lineal descendants other than children? Our decisions answer in the affirmative.\n\u201cBodily heirs,\u201d when used as descriptio personarum, and \u201cissue\u201d are synonymous terms connoting and embracing'children, grandchildren, and other lineal descendants. Matthews v. Matthews, supra; Harrell v. Hagan, supra; Bowden v. Lynch, 173 N. C., 203, 91 S. E., 957; Albright v. Albright, 172 N. C., 351, 90 S. E., 303; Pugh v. Allen, 179 N. C., 307, 102 S. E., 394; Willis v. Trust Co., supra; Hampton v. Griggs, supra; Moseley v. Knott, supra; Brown v. Holland, 221 N. C., 135, 19 S. E. (2d), 255; Elledge v. Parrish, 224 N. C., 397. For cases in other jurisdictions see 22 Words and Phrases, 742, et seq. See also 5 Words and Phrases, 583, et seq.\nDiscussing the question in Matthews v. Matthews, supra, we said:\n\u201cThe term \u2018bodily heirs\u2019 ... is more comprehensive than the term children, and means progeny or issue, and includes children, grandchildren and other lineal descendants. It is true that in some of the cases in which this term is interpreted when used as descripiio persona-rum-, it is said that it means children: However, an examination of those cases will disclose that only children were concerned and no grandchildren were involved.\u201d\nThe court below, it is true, held that upon the birth of Charlie Messer the condition in the deed was fulfilled and, non constat he predeceased Jane Messer, she thereupon became seized in fee absolute, but this was harmless error. She left surviving grandchildren. Hence the event \u2014 \u2022 death without issue \u2014 upon the happening of which plaintiffs were to take, never occurred. Thus they possess no interest in or claim to the property in controversy.\nThe conclusion that the grantors intended to convey a fee, defeasible only upon death without lineal descendant, is fortified by the circumstances of the conveyance as disclosed by the language in the deed. The \u2022consideration was love and affection. The property was conveyed as an advancement in satisfaction of the grantee\u2019s interest in the estate of her parents. It was to descend to the other children of grantors only in the event the grantee died without issue. Thus they wrote into the deed just what the law provides.\nNo reason is apparent why the grantors should cut the succession in the interest of other children and deprive the grandchildren of Jane Messer of the privilege of transmitting the inheritance. On the contrary, it clearly appears that they intended that title to the property should remain in Jane Messer\u2019s line of descent in the event there was anyone in that line to take at her death.\nAs her title, at her death, ripened into a fee absolute and her deed is binding upon her heirs, Thames v. Goode, supra; Woody v. Cates, 213 N. C., 792, 197 S. E., 561, the defendants, on their affirmative plea, were entitled to a decree that they are now the owners of the locus free of any claim of plaintiff. The court below so held.\nThe judgment is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Barnhill, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "M. V. Higdon and R. L. Phillips for plaintiffs, appellants.", "Hugh E. Monteith, E. P. Stillwell, and Dan K. Moore for defendants, appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JAMES H. TURPIN, ELLEN BROWN, IDA BROOKS, LOTTIE BRAMLETT, FANNIE SORRELLS, A. R. MESSER, DOCK MESSER, EMELINE M. TURPIN, COLE MESSER, J. C. GIBSON, JIM MESSER and ALICE SNYDER v. MRS. M. Y. JARRETT and M. Y. JARRETT.\n(Filed 27 February, 1946.)\n1. Deeds \u00a7 13b\u2014\nA provision following the warranty clause in a deed that if the grantee \u201cshould die without issue after her death\u201d the land should descend to her brothers and sisters, precludes the application of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, even though the hahen&um is to the grantee and \u201cher bodily heirs.\u201d\n2. Deeds \u00a7 13a\u2014\nWhere a conveyance is to the grantee with limitation over in the event she should die without issue after her death, to determine the effectiveness of the limitation over the roll must be called as of the date of the death of the first taker. G. S., 41-4.\n3. Same\u2014\n\u201cBodily heirs,\u201d when used as descriptio personarum, and \u201cissue\u201d are synonymous terms connoting and embracing children, grandchildren, and other lineal descendants.\n4. Same\u2014\nThe deed in question conveyed the property to the grantee with provision that should she die \u201cwithout issue after her death\u201d the lands should descend to the grantee\u2019s brothers and sisters. The grantee\u2019s sole child predeceased her but left children who survived grantee. Held: The grantee took a base or qualified fee, defeasible upon her death without \u201cissue,\u201d which term embraces lineal descendants, and therefore upon the death of the grantee leaving grandchildren her surviving the fee became absolute, defeating the limitation over, and her conveyance of the property during her lifetime is binding upon her heirs.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Rousseau, J., at October Term, 1945, of JACKSON.\nCivil action in ejectment and to remove cloud on title.\nTbe case was beard on facts agreed wbieb are in substance as follows:\nOn 29 June, 1885, Jobn Messer and wife conveyed a tract of land in Jackson County to Jane Messer. Tbe granting clause contains no words wbieb undertake to limit or define tbe estate conveyed, but tbe habendum, clause is \u201cto tbe said Jane Messer and ber bodily heirs,\u201d and immediately following tbe warranty clause there was inserted tbe following: \u201cPso-vided, however, that if tbe said Jane Messer should die without issue after ber death tbe lands mentioned in this deed is to descend to ber brothers and sisters and this is to be ber full share of our estate.\u201d Tbe grantors reserved a life estate. Jobn Messer and wife each died prior to 21 March, 1911. There was born to Jane Messer one son, Charlie Messer, who predeceased her but left surviving him a widow and five or six children who are grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Jane Messer. On 21 March, 1911, Jane Messer conveyed to Mrs. M. Y. Jarrett, one of the defendants, the locus in quo, a part of the tract described in the John Messer deed, and she has been in the sole possession thereof since that date. Jane Messer died 14 February, 1941.\nWhile not so stipulated, it is treated as a fact that the plaintiffs are the persons named in the limitation over.\nThe plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of the property and the claim of the defendant Mrs. Jarrett casts a cloud upon their title. They pray judgment that they are the owners of the property described in the complaint, free and clear of any claim of defendants.\nThe parties waived trial by jury and submitted the cause on the facts agreed. Thereupon the court adjudged that the defendant Mrs. M. Y. Jarrett is the owner and entitled to possession of the property in controversy, free and clear of any claim of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.\nM. V. Higdon and R. L. Phillips for plaintiffs, appellants.\nHugh E. Monteith, E. P. Stillwell, and Dan K. Moore for defendants, appellees." }, "file_name": "0135-01", "first_page_order": 183, "last_page_order": 186 }