{ "id": 12164882, "name": "WARREN A. RATLEY and Wife, GLADYS RATLEY, v. JOHN M. OLIVER, JR., and Wife, DORIS R. OLIVER", "name_abbreviation": "Ratley v. Oliver", "decision_date": "1948-05-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "120", "last_page": "121", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "229 N.C. 120" } ], "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": "173 N. C., 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269189 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 N. C., 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658935 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/144/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 N. C., 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271820 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 N. C., 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650042 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/101/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 N. C., 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652097 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/142/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268552 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S. E., 454", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "159 N. C., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656217 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/159/0001-01" ] }, { "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": "146 S. E., 710", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628715 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0668-01" ] }, { "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": "98 S. E., 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N. C., 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654165 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 S. E., 459", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N. C., 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653538 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 S. E., 1011", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "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": "95 S. E., 37", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 N. C., 120", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657377 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0120-01" ] }, { "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": "127 S. E., 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N. C., 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654415 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "228 N. C., 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627288 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0537-01" ] }, { "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": "119 S. E., 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N. C., 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653305 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271288 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S. E., 388", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613038 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S. E., 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 N. C., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/176/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 357, "char_count": 4973, "ocr_confidence": 0.493, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.90138112991465e-08, "percentile": 0.41957272412407054 }, "sha256": "9e4c0a0e3f8d2b5069917a6d8427d9a1dabb6638e79e74fec012bf9000201970", "simhash": "1:820cab692e0c0a23", "word_count": 904 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:16:54.231798+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "WARREN A. RATLEY and Wife, GLADYS RATLEY, v. JOHN M. OLIVER, JR., and Wife, DORIS R. OLIVER." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Devin, J.\nThe land which defendants contracted to purchase from the plaintiffs was devised to plaintiff W. A. Ratley \u201cfor his natural life, and at his death to his nearest heirs.\u201d\nUnder the rule in Shelley\u2019s case the language in which this devise was expressed must be given the effect of vesting a fee simple title to the land in the plaintiff Ratley. It is suggested by the defendants that the word \u201cnearest\u201d used by the testator limits the scope and meaning of the word heirs and prevents the application of the rule. It is argued that the phrase \u201cnearest heirs,\u201d instead of describing the extent and quality of the estate conveyed to the first taker, and denoting those to take in indefinite succession, should be regarded as designation or description of the persons who are to take otherwise than by descent. But defendants\u2019 contention on this point seems to have been determined against them by the adjudications of this Court in Crisp v. Biggs, 176 N. C., 1, 96 S. E., 662, and Cox v. Heath, 198 N. C., 503, 152 S. E., 388.\nIn Crisp v. Biggs, supra, it was held that \u201cThe words \u2018nearest heirs\u2019 means simply heirs and do not take the case out of the rule\u201d; and in Cox v. Heath, supra, it was said, \u201cThe \u2018nearest heirs\u2019 are all those persons upon whom the law would cast the inheritance\u2014Those who are heirs are therefore necessarily nearest heirs.\u201d\nThe cases cited by defendants wherein the words \u201cnearest blood relative\u201d (Miller v. Harding, 167 N. C., 53, 83 S. E., 25), \u201cnearest relatives\u201d (Fields v. Rollins, 186 N. C., 221, 119 S. E., 207), and \u201cnearest blood kindred\u201d (Brown v. Mitchell, 207 N. C., 132, 176 S. E., 258), were held to be designadlo personarum, rather than as denoting heirs generally, may not be held controlling here. The distinction is apparent.\nThe rule in Shelley's case is a rule of law and of property. Rawls v. Roebuck, 228 N. C., 537, 46 S. E. (2d), 323; Hartman v. Flynn, 189 N. C., 452, 127 S. E., 517; Hampton v. Griggs, 184 N. C., 13, 113 S. E., 501; Daniel v. Harrison, 175 N. C., 120, 95 S. E., 37; Starnes v. Hill, 112 N. C., 1, 16 S. E., 1011. It is only when the devisor uses in connection with the word heirs such explanatory and descriptive words or phrases as make it clear that the word heirs refers to certain particular individuals and that the devisor intended to change the rule of descent and to limit or confine the ultimate takers to a particular class or description, rather than to those who should take indefinitely in succession, that the rule does not apply. Nichols v. Gladden, 117 N. C., 497, 23 S. E., 459; Nobles v. Nobles, 177 N. C., 243, 98 S. E., 715; Martin v. Knowles, 195 N. C., 427, 142 S. E., 313; Barnes v. Best, 196 N. C., 668, 146 S. E., 710. And the principle seems to have been established by the adjudications of this Court that the words \u201cnearest heirs,\u201d standing alone, should be understood in their technical sense as denoting an indefinite succession of lineal descendants who are to take by inheritance (Ford v. McBrayer, 171 N. C., 420, 88 S. E., 736; Crisp v. Biggs; supra; Cox v. Heath, supra; Cotten v. Moseley, 159 N. C., 1, 74 S. E., 454; 20 N. C. L., 63), and that the rule in Shelley\u2019s case applies as a rule of law and of property, vesting fee simple title in the first taker.\nAs illustrating this principle, it was pointed out by Justice Brown in Daniel v. Harrison, 175 N. C., 120, 95 S. E., 37, that \u201cright heirs\u201d (Tyson v. Sinclair, 138 N. C., 23); \u201clawful heirs\u201d (Perry v. Hackney, 142 N. C., 368); \u201cbegotten heirs\u201d (Leathers v. Gray, 101 N. C., 162) ; \u201csurviving heirs\u201d (Price v. Griffin, 150 N. C., 523); \u201clawful heirs of his body forever\u201d (Sessoms v. Sessoms, 144 N. C., 121); \u201cbodily heirs\u201d (Smith v. Smith, 173 N. C., 124), were all held words of inheritance denoting a fee simple estate.\nThe ruling of the court below is correct and the judgment is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Devin, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "David M. Britt for plaintiffs, appellees.", "McKinnon & Seawell for defendants, appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WARREN A. RATLEY and Wife, GLADYS RATLEY, v. JOHN M. OLIVER, JR., and Wife, DORIS R. OLIVER.\n(Filed 19 May, 1948.)\n1. Wills \u00a7 33b\u2014\nThe rule in Shelley\u2019s case is a rule of law and of property.\n2. Same\u2014\nA devise to a person and his heirs takes a fee simple to the devisee under the rule in Shelley\u2019s case unless it is apparent from the language of the instrument that the word \u201cheirs\u201d is used to describe particular persons or a particular class rather than heirs general.\n3. Same\u2014\nA devise to R \u201cfor his natural life, and at his death to his nearest heirs\u201d takes a fee simple to R under the rule in Shelley\u2019s ease, since \u201cnearest heirs,\u201d standing alone, denote an indefinite succession of lineal descendants who are to take by inheritance.\nAppeal by defendants from Carr, J., at April Term, 1948, of Robeson. Affirmed.\nThis was an action to recover on a contract for the purchase of land. Payment was resisted on the ground of defect in plaintiffs\u2019 title. From judgment holding plaintiffs\u2019 title good, defendants appealed.\nDavid M. Britt for plaintiffs, appellees.\nMcKinnon & Seawell for defendants, appellants." }, "file_name": "0120-01", "first_page_order": 174, "last_page_order": 175 }