{
  "id": 8631354,
  "name": "OLLIE B. TYNCH, JAMES A. BRIGGS, HUBERT WILSON, RALEIGH WILSON, HARRY WILSON, DEANNIE W. MIZZELLE, DAISY D. BLUNT, WOODROW WILSON, ELIZABETH B. PARRISH, BERTHA B. HUNTER, THOMAS MUND (Widower of LULA BRIGGS, Deceased), MURIEL E. DAVIS, and MYRTLE FRY JOHNSON, Heirs at Law of J. R. BRIGGS, Deceased, v. W. LINWOOD BRIGGS, CURTIS LEIGH BRIGGS (Minor) and JAMES HERBERT BRIGGS (Minor), Heirs at Law of J. R. BRIGGS, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tynch v. Briggs",
  "decision_date": "1949-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "603",
  "last_page": "605",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 603"
    }
  ],
  "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": "10 S.E. 2d 662",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N.C. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615704
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 S.E. 489",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653126
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "21 S.E. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655013
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0518-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 394,
    "char_count": 6337,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.978297969467842e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5379858053500416
    },
    "sha256": "5e5ea0449531c83f76894eaf28c32d02ffcf473df8dd07a44560911de62f05a3",
    "simhash": "1:ef40e5228205768d",
    "word_count": 1107
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "OLLIE B. TYNCH, JAMES A. BRIGGS, HUBERT WILSON, RALEIGH WILSON, HARRY WILSON, DEANNIE W. MIZZELLE, DAISY D. BLUNT, WOODROW WILSON, ELIZABETH B. PARRISH, BERTHA B. HUNTER, THOMAS MUND (Widower of LULA BRIGGS, Deceased), MURIEL E. DAVIS, and MYRTLE FRY JOHNSON, Heirs at Law of J. R. BRIGGS, Deceased, v. W. LINWOOD BRIGGS, CURTIS LEIGH BRIGGS (Minor) and JAMES HERBERT BRIGGS (Minor), Heirs at Law of J. R. BRIGGS, Deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Seawell, J.\nAlthough a previous life estate is given to Sarah, in considering the application of the Eule to James\u2019 devise, he is technically the first taker. It is our first concern to determine who were meant by the testator as \u201clawful heirs\u201d of James as second takers. If the reference is to heirs general, as takers qua heirs in an indefinite line of succession, and nothing else appeared, the application of the Eule is, as said in Hampton v. Griggs, infra, inexorable; if it refers to a restricted class or particular persons of whom the term is merely descriptio per-sonarum, the rule is completely rejected. \u201cIf those who take under the Second devise take the same estate they would take as heirs or as heirs of his body, the rule applies, otherwise not.\u201d Hampton v. Griggs, 184 N.C. 13, 113 S.E. 501; Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N.C. 344, 74 S.E. 15; Minor on Real Property, p. 847.\nThe single expression \u201clawful heirs\u201d does not stand alone. The testator uses the same term in further disposition of the item in a connection that makes it clear he was not, in either instance, referring to general heirs\u2014 \u201cin the event the said James should die without lawful heirs then in remainder to my' daughter Sallie Ann for life.\u201d James could not die without heirs (in the general sense) as long as Sallie Ann, his sister, lived.\nAs we have observed, the first use of the term is not final; nor is its second use in a connection irreconcilable with any reference to general heirs the only significant factor in construction: The mere fact of further and more particular disposition of the subject item in the manner set out should be sufficient to defeat the construction contended for by the respondent.\nOn a contextual reading we must regard the language employed in the devise not as referring to general heirs, but as descriptio personarum, and find it impossible to reconcile its use with the rule in Shelley\u2019s case. It does not apply. Hampton v. Griggs, supra; Puckett v. Morgan, supra; Francks v. Whitaker, 116 N.C. 518, 21 S.E. 175; Rollins v. Keel, 115 N.C. 68, 20 S.E. 209; Bird v. Gilliam, 121 N.C. 326, 28 S.E. 489; Williamson v. Cox, 218 N.C. 177, 10 S.E. 2d 662.\nThe judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Seawell, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas L. Woodward and Godwin & Godwin for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "W. D. Boone for Defendant W. Linwood Briggs, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "OLLIE B. TYNCH, JAMES A. BRIGGS, HUBERT WILSON, RALEIGH WILSON, HARRY WILSON, DEANNIE W. MIZZELLE, DAISY D. BLUNT, WOODROW WILSON, ELIZABETH B. PARRISH, BERTHA B. HUNTER, THOMAS MUND (Widower of LULA BRIGGS, Deceased), MURIEL E. DAVIS, and MYRTLE FRY JOHNSON, Heirs at Law of J. R. BRIGGS, Deceased, v. W. LINWOOD BRIGGS, CURTIS LEIGH BRIGGS (Minor) and JAMES HERBERT BRIGGS (Minor), Heirs at Law of J. R. BRIGGS, Deceased.\n(Filed 21 September, 1949.)\n1. Wills \u00a7 33b\u2014\nTbe rule in Shelley\u2019s case applies when tbe word \u201cbeirs,\u201d used in reference to tbe remainder after a freehold estate to tbe first taker, refers to beirs general as takers qua beirs in an indefinite line of succession, and nothing else appears; but tbe rule does not apply when \u201cbeirs\u201d refers to a restricted class or particular persons of whom tbe term is merely deseriptio personarum.\n2. Same \u2014 Rule in Shelley\u2019s Case held inapplicable in this case.\nTbe will in question devised to testator\u2019s wife a life estate with remainder over to testator\u2019s son for life \u201cin remainder to bis lawful heirs,\u201d with provision that in the event tbe son should die without lawful heirs, then to testator\u2019s daughter for life with remainder to her heirs, with further provision that if she should die without \u201cheirs of her body lawfully begotten\u201d then the lands to be sold and the proceeds divided per stirpes among testator\u2019s heirs. Held: It is apparent from tbe will that the words \u201clawful heirs\u201d used in connection with the devise to testator\u2019s son were used to describe a restricted class and not to refer to heirs general of the son, and the rule in Shelley\u2019s ease does not apply.\nAppeal of defendant W. Linwood Briggs from Carr, J., March Term, 1949, G-ates Superior Court.\nThis was a proceeding for the partition of lands described in the petition, was transferred to the Civil Issue Docket for trial on the plea of sole seizin by Linwood Briggs, one of the respondents. Jury trial was waived and by consent the matter was heard by Judge Carr at March Term, 1949, of Gates Superior Court, on stipulated facts.\nIn the stipulation it was agreed that \u201cthe issues raised in this action are limited to and involve only the title of James Briggs ... to the lands devised under paragraph three of the will of Allen Briggs, Sr.\u201d\nThe third paragraph of the will reads as follows :\n\u201cI give and bequeath to my wife Sarah all the remainder of my real estate including the dwelling and other houses on said remainder for the term of her natural life and after her death to my son James for the period of his natural life in remainder to his lawful heirs and in the event the said James should die without lawful heirs then in remainder to my daughter Sallie Ann for her life and after her death to the heirs of her body lawfully begotten \u2014 and in the event of the death of the said Sallie Ann without heirs of her body lawfully begotten then said lands shall be exposed to public sale by my executor hereinafter mentioned and the proceeds arising from such sale be equally divided between and among all my children then alive and the lawful heirs of any child that may be dead the children of said deceased child to take the parents share.\u201d\nLinwood Briggs\u2019 assertion of title to the lands in controversy is based on the contention that, on a proper construction of the will, the \u201cEule in Shelley\u2019s Case\u201d applies to the devise to James Briggs, vesting in him a title in fee to the item formally devised to him as a remainder after Sarah\u2019s life estate, for the period of his natural life in remainder to his lawful heirs.\u201d Linwood holds a fee simple deed from James to the land.\nThe petitioners deny the application of the rule, contending that such construction is inconsistent with the phraseology of the devise.\nThe court below found with the petitioners, rendered judgment that petitioners and respondents are owners of the lands described in item three (alone involved in controversy), and ordered sale for partition.\nThe respondent Linwood Briggs excepted and appealed.\nThomas L. Woodward and Godwin & Godwin for plaintiffs, appellees.\nW. D. Boone for Defendant W. Linwood Briggs, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0603-01",
  "first_page_order": 659,
  "last_page_order": 661
}
