{
  "id": 8620023,
  "name": "E. W. COPPEDGE, Administrator of J. W. COPPEDGE, Deceased, v. N. C. COPPEDGE and Wife, MARY B. COPPEDGE; E. W. COPPEDGE, Unmarried; ERNEST J. WHELESS and Wife, MOZELLE Mc. G. WHELESS, BLONNIE BUNN, Widow of P. R. BUNN, Deceased; LUCILLE W. HARRIS and Husband, G. H. HARRIS; RUBY W. DOBSON and Husband, CECIL R. DOBSON; VIVIAN W. TAYLOE and Husband, GORDON B. TAYLOE; BENJAMIN F. WHELESS, Unmarried; CHARLES MARION WHELESS, Unmarried; P. C. COPPEDGE and Wife, ALVERTA M. COPPEDGE; S. A. COPPEDGE and Wife, MAY P. COPPEDGE; DAISY C. WHEELER and Husband, J. H. WHEELER; BEULAH C. BUNN and Husband, NORFOLK BUNN; MARY ETTA C. GRIFFIN and Husband, S. D. GRIFFIN; MYRTLE C. BUNN and Husband, J. W. BUNN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Coppedge v. Coppedge",
  "decision_date": "1951-09-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "173",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "234 N.C. 173"
    }
  ],
  "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": "23 S.E. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N.C. 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 A.L.R. 1138",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S.E. 2d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 246",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627339
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0246-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 S.E. 2d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.C. 714",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11308816
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0714-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 S.E. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N.C. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624470
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 S.E. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 N.C. 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653265
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/180/0157-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S.E. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N.C. 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654878
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0003-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S.E. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N.C. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651333
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0675-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.C. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277062
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.C. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2091733
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/62/0353-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.C. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2091754
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/62/0005-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 N.C. 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688255
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/55/0202-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 682",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616990
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0245-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N.C. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2083742
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/68/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682762
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/59/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696289
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/58/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. 301",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692357
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/58/0301-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 N.C. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2100094
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/39/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 N.C. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8681043
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/37/0072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.E. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 N.C. 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252650
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0106-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.C. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277411
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.C. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682774
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.C. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696278
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S.E. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651300
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/115/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S.E. 14",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N.C. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655992
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 S.E. 451",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N.C. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619736
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S.E. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N.C. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629764
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 S.E. 2d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N.C. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601121
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/216/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683751
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/7/0027-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274531
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/21/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694347
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/17/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684086
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/12/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277992
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/10/0604-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N.C. 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693265
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/22/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 N.C. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8685285
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/54/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N.C. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683397
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0597-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Pac. 707",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 A.L.R. 1060",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.C. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650298
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 S.E. 892",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 N.C. 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653649
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/180/0369-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.C. 351",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277376
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/50/0351-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.E. 979",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 N.C. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11254401
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S.E. 187",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N.C. 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596902
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 S.E. 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N.C. 624",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631070
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0624-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N.C. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626186
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 S.E. 2d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 734",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616549
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0734-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 S.E. 2d 695",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629193
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 888",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599619
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 S.E. 2d 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 611",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615202
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0611-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S.E. 2d 205",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8594789
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0013-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S.E. 2d 625",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595557
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.W. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 Iowa 117",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        8644233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/211/0117-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 N.C. 436",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682798
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/47/0436-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 A.L.R. 157",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "p. 161"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 A.L.R. 1385",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "p. 1389"
        },
        {
          "page": "p. 1390"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 A.L.R. 15",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "p. 22"
        },
        {
          "page": "p. 25"
        },
        {
          "page": "p. 29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 N.C. 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2102574
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/41/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N.C. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2104303
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/23/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 S.E. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N.C. 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 S.E. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N.C. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624470
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S.E. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N.C. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651333
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0675-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N.C. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2083742
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/68/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682762
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/59/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 N.C. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2100094
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/39/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 N.C. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8681043
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/37/0072-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 928,
    "char_count": 22250,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.0867215967107214e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9090975960374523
    },
    "sha256": "75e9bc30460cfe698713837fd8739891da6a8ad034a38a7316bb37c6d4e25964",
    "simhash": "1:82191430ad46c9ce",
    "word_count": 3910
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:56.500685+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "ValeNtine, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "E. W. COPPEDGE, Administrator of J. W. COPPEDGE, Deceased, v. N. C. COPPEDGE and Wife, MARY B. COPPEDGE; E. W. COPPEDGE, Unmarried; ERNEST J. WHELESS and Wife, MOZELLE Mc. G. WHELESS, BLONNIE BUNN, Widow of P. R. BUNN, Deceased; LUCILLE W. HARRIS and Husband, G. H. HARRIS; RUBY W. DOBSON and Husband, CECIL R. DOBSON; VIVIAN W. TAYLOE and Husband, GORDON B. TAYLOE; BENJAMIN F. WHELESS, Unmarried; CHARLES MARION WHELESS, Unmarried; P. C. COPPEDGE and Wife, ALVERTA M. COPPEDGE; S. A. COPPEDGE and Wife, MAY P. COPPEDGE; DAISY C. WHEELER and Husband, J. H. WHEELER; BEULAH C. BUNN and Husband, NORFOLK BUNN; MARY ETTA C. GRIFFIN and Husband, S. D. GRIFFIN; MYRTLE C. BUNN and Husband, J. W. BUNN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeNNY, J.\nThe intent of the testator is the polar star that must guide the courts in the interpretation of a will. Buffaloe v. Blalock, 232 N.C. 105, 59 S.E. 2d 625; Elmore v. Austin, 232 N.C. 13, 59 S.E. 2d 205; Cannon v. Cannon, 225 N.C. 611, 36 S.E. 2d 17; Holland v. Smith, 224 N.C. 255, 29 S.E. 2d 888. This intent is to be gathered from a consideration of the will from its four corners, and such intent should be given effect unless contrary to some rule of law or at variance with public policy. House v. House, 231 N.C. 218, 56 S.E. 2d 695; Williams v. Rand, 223 N.C. 734, 28 S.E. 2d 247; Heyer v. Bulluck, 210 N.C. 321, 186 S.E. 356.\nIt is permissible, in order to effectuate or ascertain a testator\u2019s intention, for the Court to transpose words, phrases, or clauses. Williams v. Rand, supra; Heyer v. Bulluck, supra; Washburn v. Biggerstaff, 195 N.C. 624, 143 S.E. 210; Gordon v. Ehringhaus, 190 N.C. 147, 129 S.E. 187; Crouse v. Barham, 174 N.C. 460, 93 S.E. 979; Baker v. Pender, 50 N.C. 351.\nLikewise, to effectuate tbe intention of tbe testator, tbe Court may disregard, or supply, punctuation. Williams v. Rand, supra; Carroll v. Herring, 180 N.C. 369, 104 S.E. 892; Bunn v. Wells, 94 N.C. 67; Stoddart v. Golden, 3 A.L.R. 1060, 178 Pac. 707. Even words, phrases, or clauses will be supplied in tbe construction of a will wben tbe sense of tbe phrases, or clauses, in question, as collected from tbe context, manifestly requires it. Williams v. Rand, supra, Washburn v. Biggerstaff, supra; Gordon v. Ehringhaus, supra; Crouse v. Barham, supra; Howerton v. Henderson, 88 N.C. 597; Dew v. Barnes, 54 N.C. 149; Sessoms v. Sessoms, 22 N.C. 453.\nTbe only question involved in this appeal is whether the beneficiaries, under tbe residuary clause of tbe will of J. W. Coppedge, take per capita or per stirpes.\nOur Court has experienced considerable difficulty in similar cases. In Stowe v. Ward, 10 N.C. 604, tbe language construed was as follows: \u201cIt is my will, and I do allow that all tbe remaining part of my estate, both real and personal, be equally divided amongst tbe heirs of my brother, John Ford, tbe heirs of my sister Nanny Stowe, tbe heirs of my sister Sally Ward, deceased, and nephew, Levi Ward.\u201d Tbe Court was requested to pass upon tbe manner in which tbe personal property was to be distributed. It held that tbe word \u201cheirs\u201d was used in tbe sense of \u201cchildren\u201d and as a designation of persons, and directed a distribution of tbe property per capita. Later, tbe parties requested tbe Court to construe tbe same language with respect to tbe disposition of tbe real property, tbe opinion being reported in 12 N.C. 67. There tbe Court held tbe beneficiaries under tbe will took per stirpes and not per capita. Wben tbe second opinion was banded down, tbe personal property bad been distributed per capita, whereupon another action was instituted by Ward v. Stow, et als., 17 N.C. 509, to compel a redistribution of tbe personal property per stirpes. The Court held that tbe first opinion construing tbe will, to tbe effect that tbe beneficiaries thereunder took per capita, was correct and overruled Stow v. Ward, 12 N.C. 67.\nIn Bryant, Admr., v. Scott, 21 N.C. 155, tbe residue of tbe estate was \u201cto be equally divided\u201d among Edith Bryant, Margaret Parker, Julia Yalentine, and tbe children of bis daughter Temperance, and tbe children of a deceased son James. Tbe Court held tbe division to be per capita, and said: \u201cTbe intention that tbe grandchildren should take per stirpes is conjectured from tbe reasonableness of it, as applied to tbe state of most families. But wben tbe gift is made under circumstances which exclude all reference to tbe statute of distribution, that conjecture must be given up; and when to that is added a direction for an equal division among all the donees, no court could feel safe in making an unequal division.\u201d\nIn the instant case, the testator directs that the residue of bis estate be divided among bis \u201clegal beirs . . . equally, share and share alike as provided by the laws of North Carolina.\u201d\nWe must determine whether the testator intended that upon ascertaining who his \u201clegal heirs\u201d are, as provided by the laws of North Carolina, such heirs should take per capita, \u2014 that is, equally, share and share alike; or, whether he intended that his \u201clegal heirs\u201d should take the residue of his estate in the proportions provided by law in the same manner as they would take had he died intestate. In the latter case, his heirs would not \u201cshare and share alike,\u201d neither would they share \u201cequally.\u201d\nIn construing a will, the entire instrument should be considered; clauses apparently repugnant should be reconciled and effect given where possible to every clause or phrase and to every word. \u201cEvery part of a will is to be considered in its construction, and no words ought to be rejected if any meaning can possibly be put upon them. Every string should give its sound,\u201d Edens v. Williams, 7 N.C. 27. Williams v. Rand, supra; Lee v. Lee, 216 N.C. 349, 4 S.E. 2d 880; Bell v. Thurston, 214 N.C. 231, 199 S.E. 93; Roberts v. Saunders, 192 N.C. 191, 134 S.E. 451. But, where provisions are inconsistent, it is a general rule in the interpretation of wills, to recognize the general prevailing purpose of the testator and to subordinate the inconsistent provisions found in it. Snow v. Boylston, 185 N.C. 321, 117 S.E. 14; Tucker v. Moye, 115 N.C. 71, 20 S.E. 186; Macon v. Macon, 75 N.C. 376; King v. Lynch, 74 N.C. 364; Lassiter v. Wood, 63 N.C. 360.\nIn 40 Cyc. 1464, the author says: \u201cThe word \u2018heirs\u2019 in a will, when applied to real estate, primarily means persons so related to one by blood that they would take the estate in case of intestacy; and when applied to personalty, primarily means next of kin or those persons who would take under the statute of distribution in case of intestacy, and this rule applies where the will directs realty to be sold and the proceeds paid to the heirs.\u201d Everett v. Griffin, 174 N.C. 106, 93 S.E. 474.\nOne of the leading cases on the question before us is Freeman v. Knight, 37 N.C. 72, where the Court was called upon to interpret an item in Josiah Freeman\u2019s will which read as follows: \u201cIt is also my will that Big Sam and Isaac should be sold and the proceeds equally divided between my legal heirs.\u201d Gaston, J., in speaking for the Court said: \u201cWhere personal property is given simpliciter to \u2018heirs,\u2019 the statute of distributions is to be the guide, not only for ascertaining who succeeds and who are the \u2018heirs,\u2019 but how they succeed or in what proportions do they respectively take. But as donees claim, not under the statute, but under the will, if the will directs the manner and the proportions in which they are to take, the directions of the will must be observed and guidance of tbe statute is to be followed no further than where the will refers to it \u2014 that is to say, for the ascertainment of the persons who answer the descriptions therein given. The division directed by the will must be obeyed.\u201d Hill v. Spruill, 39 N.C. 244.\n, In the cases of Rogers v. Brickhouse, 58 N.C. 301, and Burgin v. Patton, 58 N.C. 425, the Court did not adhere to the decision in Freeman v. Knight, supra. However, the next time the question was presented to the Court for consideration, in Hackney v. Griffin, 59 N.C. 381, Chief Justice Pearson, speaking for the Court, said: \u201cIt is settled that the effect of the word \u2018equal\u2019 is to require the distribution to be made per capita; Freeman v. Knight, 37 N.C. 72, and, as stated in that case, whatever might be the thought of this distinction, were the matter now a new one, to disregard them at this day would be quieta movere.\u201d And again in Tuttle v. Puitt, 68 N.C. 543, the Court speaking through Rod-man, J., said: \u201cIt is too firmly settled by authority to admit of a question, that where a testator directs his property, whether real or personal, to be equally divided among his heirs, the division must be per capita and not per stirpes.\u201d Everett v. Griffin, supra; Wooten v. Outland, 226 N.C. 245, 37 S.E. 2d 682.\nThe general rule in this jurisdiction is to the effect that where an equal division is directed among heirs, or a class of beneficiaries, even though such class of beneficiaries may be described as heirs of deceased persons, heirs or children of living persons, the beneficiaries take per capita and not per stirpes. Stowe v. Ward, supra (10 N.C. 604); Byrant, Admr., v. Scott, supra; Freeman v. Knight, supra; Hill v. Spruill, supra; Hackney v. Griffin, supra; Tuttle v. Puitt, supra; Shull v. Johnson, 55 N.C. 202; Hastings v. Earp, 62 N.C. 5; Waller v. Forsythe, 62 N.C. 353; Britton v. Miller, 63 N.C. 268; Culp v. Lee, 109 N.C. 675, 14 S.E. 74; Leggett v. Simpson, 176 N.C. 3, 96 S.E. 638; Ex parte Brogden, 180 N.C. 157, 104 S.E. 177; Burton v. Cahill, 192 N.C. 505, 135 S.E. 332; Tillman v. O\u2019Briant, 220 N.C. 714, 18 S.E. 2d 131.\nThe rule, however, will not control if the testator indicates the beneficiaries are to take by families or by classes as representatives of the deceased ancestor. Wooten v. Outland, supra, and cited eases.\nIn a bequest, or devise, as well as under the statute of distributions, or the canons of descent, where the beneficiaries take as representatives of an ancestor, they take per stirpes. In re Poindexter, 221 N.C. 246, 20 S.E. 2d 49, 140 A.L.R. 1138. But, when they take directly under a bequest, or devise, as individuals and not in a representative capacity, and the testator provides that the division or distribution shall be in equal proportions, they take per capita. Wooten v. Outland, supra.\nTbe language used by tbe testator in bis will, when considered in tbe light of our decisions, leads us to tbe conclusion that be intended for tbe residue of bis estate to be equally divided among bis legal beirs, share and share alike, and that tbe reference to tbe laws of North Carolina was intended only for tbe purpose of ascertaining who are bis \u201clegal beirs.\u201d\nThis interpretation will give effect to every clause or phrase, and every word in tbe will. Or, to put it another way, every string will give its sound, Edens v. Williams, supra, and every note will be retained in tbe melody. To bold otherwise would require us to ignore tbe direction of tbe testator that tbe residue of bis estate is to be divided among bis \u201clegal beirs, equally, share and share alike.\u201d Tbe appellants are claiming under tbe will, and tbe division directed therein must be obeyed. Freeman v. Knight, supra.\nTbe argument of tbe appellees to tbe effect that to allow an equal distribution per capita will result in an unfair and unnatural distribution as between tbe brothers of tbe testator and other legatees, will not b'e permitted to disturb tbe express provisions in tbe will which point to a per capita distribution. Johnston v. Knight, 117 N.C. 122, 23 S.E. 92; Burton v. Cahill, supra.\nTbe judgment of tbe court below is\nEeversed.\nValeNtine, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeNNY, J."
      },
      {
        "text": "Johnson, J.,\ndissenting: It may be conceded that where tbe words \u201cequally\u201d or \u201cshare and share alike\u201d are used to indicate an equal division among a class, they ordinarily import a division per capita. Hobbs v. Craige, 23 N.C. 332; Freeman v. Knight, 37 N.C. 72; Hill v. Spruill, 39 N.C. 244; Henderson v. Womack, 41 N.C. 437; Hackney v. Griffin, 59 N.C. 381; Tuttle v. Puitt, 68 N.C. 543; Culp v. Lee, 109 N.C. 675, 14 S.E. 74; Johnston v. Knight, 117 N.C. 122, 23 S.E. 92; Burton v. Cahill, 192 N.C. 505, 135 S.E. 332. See also 57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 1297; Annotations: 16 A.L.R. 15, p. 22; 78 A.L.R. 1385, p. 1389; and 126 A.L.R. 157, p. 161.\nBut as stated in 57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 1297, \u201cThere is abundant authority, however, to tbe effect that such expressions do not necessarily require a per capita equality of division but apply just as readily and appropriately to a per stirpes equality. Thus, it has been held that tbe word \u2018equally\u2019 may be satisfied by an equality between a class and legatees named, and that tbe expression \u2018each to share and share alike\u2019 may be satisfied by a division between classes.\u201d\nEspecially is this so when tbe context imports a per stirpes division (57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 1297; Annotations: 16 A.L.R. 15, p. 25; 78 A.L.R. 1385, p. 1390; and 126 A.L.R. 157, pp. 162 and 163), as where there is a reference in the will to the statutes of descent or distribution, such as a direction that the division shall be \u201cas provided by the laws \u2022of the state,\u201d and such reference appears from the context to relate not solely to the persons who are to take, but also, or instead, to the proportions in which they are to take. \u201cIn such circumstances the distribution will he per stirpes rather than per capita where,\u201d as here; the succession is to heirs of different degrees of relationship to the decedent. 57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 1299. See also Annotations 16 A.L.R. 15, p. 29; 126 A.L.R. 157, p. 165 ; 69 C.J. 287 et seq.; Bivens v. Phifer, 47 N.C. 436.\nAnd should there he doubt as to whether the limitation \u201cas provided by the laws of the state,\u201d or like expression, is referable to the mode of ascertaining who are to take, or to the proportions in which the beneficiaries are to take, then the following observation of the Iowa Court would seem to be in point: \u201cWhere the question is in the balances of doubt, the doubt is to he solved in favor of a taking per stirpes rather than per capita. One reason for this preference is that such taking is in accord with the laws of descent and in accord with the natural instinct of testators.\u201d Claude v. Schutt, 211 Iowa 117, 233 N.W. 41. See also 57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 1292, p. 855.\nIn the instant case the disputed item of the will is as follows:\n\u201cThe remainder of my estate is to be divided among my legal heirs, including said Myrtle Coppedge Bunn, equally, share and share alike as provided by laws of North Carolina, . . .\u201d\nThe limitation \u201cas provided by laws of North Carolina\u201d is interpreted in the majority opinion as referring solely to the mode of ascertaining who are to take, i.e., that this clause \u201cwas intended only for the purpose of ascertaining who are his \u2018legal heirs.\u2019 \u201d However, it would seem that upon a contextual interpretation of the disputed item this qualifying clause may be construed with more force of logic as referring to the manner and proportions in which the testator\u2019s \u201cheirs\u201d are to take under the will. Here, it is observed that the first direction of the testator is that the remainder of his estate be divided among \u201cmy legal heirs.\u201d He does not say \u201cheirs.\u201d He qualifies it by saying \u201clegal heirs.\u201d This qualification made it perfectly clear who were to take under the will. The testator was a bachelor. His only heirs and next of kin were two living brothers and the children and grandchildren of a deceased brother and a deceased sister. Thus, the job of determining who were the testator\u2019s \u201cheirs\u201d was simple. He made it more so when he said \u201cmy legal heirs.\u201d No further instruction was necessary in order to fix with certainty who were to take. There was no need to add the further instruction \u201cas provided by laws of North Carolina.\u201d And this he did not do. To give the will such an interpretation requires that the clause \u201cas provided by laws of North Carolina\u201d be taken out of context and transposed to another part of the sentence.\nOn the other hand, when the limitation \u201cas provided by laws of North Carolina\u201d is left where the testator put it, at the end of the sentence, it clearly appears to have been intended as a guide for fixing and determining the manner and proportions in which his \u201clegal heirs\u201d shall take under the will; So that, when the testator directed that the residue of his estate (and practically all of his estate falls in the residue) \u201cbe divided among my legal heirs, including said Myrtle Coppedge Bunn, equally, share and share alike,\u201d he qualified it by saying \u201cas provided by laws of North Carolina,\u201d and that would seem to mean equally, share and share alike within classes, \u2014 per stirpes, as is the law of North Carolina. Such construction is rendered all the more certain by the fact that no comma breaks the cadence of the expression \u201cshare and share alike as provided by laws of North Carolina.\u201d\nThe interpretation expressed in the majority opinion seems to take out of context and restrict and unduly minimize the force of this closing limitation of the testator, \u201cas provided by laws of North Carolina.\u201d This limitation is salutary. It would seem to be controlling. It makes the case distinguishable from the rule explained and applied in the cases cited in the majority opinion. In 69 C. J. 287, it is stated:\n\u201cIn ascertaining how the parties are to take, the intention of the testator, reached by an examination of the language used as applied to all the surrounding circumstances and conditions present in the testator\u2019s mind at the time the will was written, is the determining factor. As a general rule the devisees or legatees will, if possible, be construed to take per capita rather than per stirpes, unless the will shows a contrary intention on the part of the testator, as where the beneficiaries are to take substitutionally. The presumption of per capita distribution is not a strong one, however, and is easily overborne; it will yield to a very faint glimpse of a different intention. In case of doubt, the statutes of descent and distribution should be followed as nearly as possible.\u201d\nThere is compelling natural logic in the view that the testator intended to put the residue of his estate in the lap of the law for division under our statutes of descent and distribution when he directed that it \u201cbe divided among my legal heirs, including Myrtle Coppedge Bunn, equally, share and share alike as provided by laws of North Carolina.\u201d Under the language of this will, it is hardly conceivable that he intended an equal per capita division among his fifteen heirs of such varying degrees of kinship, thus placing his two surviving brothers in no stronger position than his two grand nephews.\nMy vote is to sustain the per stirpes ruling of the court below.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Johnson, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. L. Davenport for E. W. Go.ppedge, plaintiff, appellee.",
      "O. B. Moss and Hill Yarborough for defendants, appellants.",
      "Ilimous T. Valentine and Oooley <& May for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. W. COPPEDGE, Administrator of J. W. COPPEDGE, Deceased, v. N. C. COPPEDGE and Wife, MARY B. COPPEDGE; E. W. COPPEDGE, Unmarried; ERNEST J. WHELESS and Wife, MOZELLE Mc. G. WHELESS, BLONNIE BUNN, Widow of P. R. BUNN, Deceased; LUCILLE W. HARRIS and Husband, G. H. HARRIS; RUBY W. DOBSON and Husband, CECIL R. DOBSON; VIVIAN W. TAYLOE and Husband, GORDON B. TAYLOE; BENJAMIN F. WHELESS, Unmarried; CHARLES MARION WHELESS, Unmarried; P. C. COPPEDGE and Wife, ALVERTA M. COPPEDGE; S. A. COPPEDGE and Wife, MAY P. COPPEDGE; DAISY C. WHEELER and Husband, J. H. WHEELER; BEULAH C. BUNN and Husband, NORFOLK BUNN; MARY ETTA C. GRIFFIN and Husband, S. D. GRIFFIN; MYRTLE C. BUNN and Husband, J. W. BUNN.\n(Filed 26 September, 1951.)\n1. Wills \u00a7 31\u2014\nTbe intent of testator as gathered from the four corners of the instrument is the polar star in its interpretation, and will be given effect unless contrary to some rule of law or to public policy.\n2. Same\u2014\nIn order to effectuate testator\u2019s intent, the courts may transpose or supply words, phrases or clauses when the context manifestly requires it, and may disregard or supply punctuation.\n3. Same\u2014\nIn construing a will every word or clause will be given effect if possible, and apparent repugnancies reconciled, and irreconcilable repugnancies resolved by giving effect to the general prevailing purpose of testator.\n4. Wills \u00a7 34c\u2014\nTestator left him surviving a brother, a half brother, children of a deceased sister, children of a deceased brother, and grandchildren of a deceased sister. Testator directed that the remainder of his estate \u201cbe divided among my legal heirs, . . . equally, share and share alike as provided by laws of North Carolina . . .\u201d Held: The beneficiaries take per capita and not per stirpes, this result being necessary to give effect to the words \u201cequally, share and share alike\u201d and the phrase \u201cas provided by laws of North Carolina\u201d being given effect as ascertaining who are his legal heirs.\nValentine, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nJohnson, J., dissenting.\nAppeal by defendants Ernest J. Wheless and wife, Mozelle Me. G. Wheless; Blonnie Bunn, widow of B. B. Bunn, deceased; Lucille W. Harris and husband, G. H. Harris; B.uby W. Dobson and husband, Cecil E. Dobson; Yivian W. Tayloe and husband, Gordon B. Tayloe; Benjamin F. Wheless, unmarried; Charles Marion Wheless, unmarried; and Myrtle C. Bunn and husband, J. W. Bunn, from Harris, J., February Term, 1951, of Nash.\nThis is an action instituted pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, to determine the rights of the parties in and to the real and personal estate of J. W. Coppedge who died testate on 12 July, 1949.\nThe testator never married, but left surviving him the following collateral heirs, or next of kin: A brother, E. W. Coppedge; a half brother, N. C. Coppedge; Ernest J. Wheless, Blonnie Bunn, Lucille W. Harris, Ruby W. Dobson and Vivian W. Tayloe, children of a deceased sister, Mrs. Miley J. Wheless; and Benjamin F. Wheless and Charles Marion Wheless, children of B. J. Wheless, a deceased son of Mrs. Miley J. Wheless; and P. C. Coppedge, S. A. Coppedge, Daisy C. Wheeler, Beulah C. Bunn, Mary Etta C. Griffin, and Myrtle C. Bunn, children of a deceased brother, S. J. Coppedge.\nThe testator, in Item 1 of his will, bequeathed to his niece, Mrs. Myrtle Coppedge Bunn, the sum of $1,000, and disposed of the residue of his estate in Item 3 of his will which reads as follows:\n\u201c3 : The remainder of my estate is to be divided among my legal heirs, including said Myrtle Coppedge Bunn, equally, share and share alike as provided by laws of North Carolina, after the said $1,000 mentioned in paragraph 1 has been paid.\u201d\nThe court below held that the residue of the estate was to be divided per stirpes and not per capita. The appellants hereinbefore named, appeal to the Supi-eme Court, and assign error.\nL. L. Davenport for E. W. Go.ppedge, plaintiff, appellee.\nO. B. Moss and Hill Yarborough for defendants, appellants.\nIlimous T. Valentine and Oooley <& May for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0173-01",
  "first_page_order": 219,
  "last_page_order": 226
}