{
  "id": 8611365,
  "name": "MRS. ELLA OWEN v. HENRY S. GATES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Owen v. Gates",
  "decision_date": "1955-01-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "408",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 N.C. 407"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 192,
    "char_count": 2333,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2253109361428536e-07,
      "percentile": 0.778085710788544
    },
    "sha256": "560d48bea50573dbb8dd5de9a1446b715cba9a3570fffae53c53be3f88dffeee",
    "simhash": "1:3ab08a8be78a48da",
    "word_count": 414
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:40.140494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. ELLA OWEN v. HENRY S. GATES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe language used by the testator in paragraph 4 of bis will is clear and unambiguous. There is no room for construction. What prompted the testator to limit the estate devised to plaintiff to an estate for life we do not know. Even so, this be did in language which cannot be misunderstood, and there is no other provision in the will evidencing an intent to the contrary. We must, therefore, accept the will as the testator made it.\nTbe judgment entered in tbe court below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Davis & Davis for plaintiff' appellant.",
      "Burns & Dong and Charles B. Wood, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. ELLA OWEN v. HENRY S. GATES.\n(Filed 14 January, 1955.)\nWills \u00a7 33g\u2014\nThe will provided \u201cI give my home and the balance of my land to my darter Ella for her to hold and have her lifetime.\u201d Meld: In the absence of other provision evidencing an intent to the contrary, the plain and unambiguous language limits the estate devised to a life estate, and the devisee cannot convey the fee.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Moore, J., October Term 1954, PeesoN.\nAffirmed.\nControversy without action under G.S. 1-220.\nPlaintiff contracted to sell to defendant the land she took under ber father\u2019s will and to convey to him a fee simple title thereto by deed containing full covenants of warranty. Defendant declined to accept deed for tbe reason plaintiff did not own and could not convey a fee simple title to said land. Thereupon, tbis proceeding was instituted to have tbe court adjudicate tbe respective rights of tbe parties.\nTbe testator, plaintiff\u2019s father, died seized of tbe land in controversy. His will contains tbe following provision:\n\u201c1. I leave my property to Be equally divided amonst my three children . . . i lean all of my land to my widow for ber to have tbe Benefit of it so long as she is my widow and when she ceases to Be my widow I want it equel divied amonst my three children.\u201d\nIn paragraphs 2 and 3 be devised specified tracts of land to bis son and to bis oldest daughter and ber husband. Paragraph 4 is as follows:\n\u201c4. I give my home and tbe balance of my land to my darter Ella for ber to bold and have ber lifetime.\u201d\nTbe court below concluded tbat plaintiff took a life estate only in tbe land devised to ber and signed judgment denying plaintiff\u2019s prayer for specific performance. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nDavis & Davis for plaintiff' appellant.\nBurns & Dong and Charles B. Wood, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 445,
  "last_page_order": 446
}