{ "id": 8575296, "name": "In the Matter of: The Will of WILLIE SPAIN WILSON, Deceased; FRANK SPAIN, Individually, and as Administrator c.t.a. of the Estate of WILLIE SPAIN WILSON, and wife, MATTIE W. SPAIN, ROBERT W. SPAIN and wife, PEARL M. SPAIN, FRANKLIN H. SPAIN and wife, JEAN S. SPAIN and WILLIAM M. SPAIN and wife BARBARA W. SPAIN, Petitioners v. ROBERT W. SPAIN, JR., (Minor), THOMAS MOODY SPAIN (Minor), and JOHNNY CLAUDE SPAIN (Minor), CHILDREN OF ROBERT W. SPAIN, DAPHNE GAY SPAIN (Minor) and MARSHA LYNN SPAIN (Minor), CHILDREN OF FRANKLIN H. SPAIN, WILLIAM M. SPAIN, JR., (Minor), CHILD OF WILLIAM M. SPAIN, and any unborn CHILDREN OF ROBERT W. SPAIN, ROBERT W. SPAIN, JR., FRANKLIN H. SPAIN and WILLIAM M. SPAIN, MATTIE W. REAVIS, Widow, ROSA S. STAINBACK and Husband, T. G. STAINBACK, FLORENCE S. PREDDY and Husband, WILL PREDDY, LEWIS W. SPAIN and Wife, ELIZABETH P. SPAIN, W. J. COOPER, JR., Unmarried, MARY C. HAMLET and Husband, SWAYNE HAMLET, MARY W. BASKETT and Husband, CHARLES B. BASKETT, MATTIE W. PUCKETT, LUCY W. BALL and Husband, R. T. BALL, DAVE E. WIGGINS and Wife, LOLA WIGGINS, JOHN B. WIGGINS and Wife, RUTH T. WIGGINS, BETTY W. HIGHT and Husband, HARTWELL HIGHT, EDDIE JEAN WIGGINS (Minor), ROBERT B. WIGGINS, JR., (Minor), WILLIAM B. BARTHOLOMEW and Wife, MRS. WILLIAM B. BARTHOLOMEW, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Spain v. Spain", "decision_date": "1963-11-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "482", "last_page": "486", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "260 N.C. 482" } ], "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": "128 S.E. 2d 601", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560527 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Pa. St. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 418953 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/37/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N.Y.S. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 N.Y.S. 2d 881", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 A. 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.E. 152", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 A. 499", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 A. 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 A. 374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 A. 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 Am. Dec. 586", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Pa. St. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1014505 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/60/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 A. 2d 380", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 L.R.A. 803", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 S.E. 388", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 N.C. 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270375 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/147/0540-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 S.E. 2d 465", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626129 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 S.E. 2d 426", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625341 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S.E. 2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626118 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 S.E. 2d 420", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 N.C. 714", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616864 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0714-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 S.E. 2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N.C. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621023 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/252/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S.E. 2d 167", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 2116161 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/241/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560854 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S.E. 2d 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561244 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0482-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 658, "char_count": 12040, "ocr_confidence": 0.416, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.855378459861826e-07, "percentile": 0.7241175064646627 }, "sha256": "5aa2022ab01df3cfea3a649f9e49b60ebd1bacadb9c2b20e4453b1b1549310d4", "simhash": "1:f11b825bbcaca916", "word_count": 2145 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In the Matter of: The Will of WILLIE SPAIN WILSON, Deceased; FRANK SPAIN, Individually, and as Administrator c.t.a. of the Estate of WILLIE SPAIN WILSON, and wife, MATTIE W. SPAIN, ROBERT W. SPAIN and wife, PEARL M. SPAIN, FRANKLIN H. SPAIN and wife, JEAN S. SPAIN and WILLIAM M. SPAIN and wife BARBARA W. SPAIN, Petitioners v. ROBERT W. SPAIN, JR., (Minor), THOMAS MOODY SPAIN (Minor), and JOHNNY CLAUDE SPAIN (Minor), CHILDREN OF ROBERT W. SPAIN, DAPHNE GAY SPAIN (Minor) and MARSHA LYNN SPAIN (Minor), CHILDREN OF FRANKLIN H. SPAIN, WILLIAM M. SPAIN, JR., (Minor), CHILD OF WILLIAM M. SPAIN, and any unborn CHILDREN OF ROBERT W. SPAIN, ROBERT W. SPAIN, JR., FRANKLIN H. SPAIN and WILLIAM M. SPAIN, MATTIE W. REAVIS, Widow, ROSA S. STAINBACK and Husband, T. G. STAINBACK, FLORENCE S. PREDDY and Husband, WILL PREDDY, LEWIS W. SPAIN and Wife, ELIZABETH P. SPAIN, W. J. COOPER, JR., Unmarried, MARY C. HAMLET and Husband, SWAYNE HAMLET, MARY W. BASKETT and Husband, CHARLES B. BASKETT, MATTIE W. PUCKETT, LUCY W. BALL and Husband, R. T. BALL, DAVE E. WIGGINS and Wife, LOLA WIGGINS, JOHN B. WIGGINS and Wife, RUTH T. WIGGINS, BETTY W. HIGHT and Husband, HARTWELL HIGHT, EDDIE JEAN WIGGINS (Minor), ROBERT B. WIGGINS, JR., (Minor), WILLIAM B. BARTHOLOMEW and Wife, MRS. WILLIAM B. BARTHOLOMEW, Defendants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "RodmaN, J.\nAs said by Shakp, J., in Trust Co. v. Bryant, 258 N.C. 482, 128 S.E. 2d 758: \u201cThe basic rule of -construction, and the refrain of every opinion; which seeks to comprehend a testamentary plan is that '(t)'he intent of the testator is the polar star that must guide the courts in the interpretation of a will\u2019.\u201d Moose, J., .said in Poindexter v. Trust Co., 258 N.C. 371, 128 S.E. 2d 167: \u201cThe intent of the testatrix iis her will and must ibe carried out unless some rule of law forbidis it.\u201d\nTestatrix did not \u201cgive,\u201d \u201c\u00a1bequeath,\u201d or \u201cdevise\u201d 'her property. She \u201cwants\u201d (used .in nine different places) certain designated persons to have designated parts of her estate. Except where she expressly \u201cwants\u201d a beneficiary to have .a life estate in her realty, the will does not particularize \u00a1the estate the beneficiary acquires.\nIt is, we -think, apparent from the writing that Mrs. Wilson intended a complete disposition of her properties. Where one undertakes to make a will, the presumption is that toe instrument disposes oif all of testator\u2019s property, not leaving a residue to pass under laws governing intestacy. Poindexter v. Trust Co., supra; Little v. Trust Co., 252 N.C. 229, 113 S.E. 2d 689. \u201cHaving undertaken to make a -will -at all, it is not consistent with sound reasoning that the testator would have left his estate -dangling.\u201d Coddington v. Stone, 217 N.C. 714, 9 S.E. 2d 420.\nHere toe intent -of -toe testatrix to limit the estate in toe realty given her brother Frank is -apparent. At -hie death she w-an-ts toe place to go to three named -nephews -and a great-nephew. Had toe will stopped there, the named devisees would ihiave taken an estate in fee. G.S. 31-38; Morris v. Morris, 246 N.C. 314, 98 S.E. 2d 298. But the will did not stop with 'the gift to the nephews and great-nephew who take on the termination of the life estate given to testatrix\u2019 brother Frank. She said: \u201cAt there death I want the place to go to there 'Children & so on . . .\u201d The language used in making the gift to the nephew\u00a9 and great-nephew is similar to the language used with respect to the gift to her brother. At their death she wants \u201cthe place to go to there children.\u201d Had \u00a9he \u00a9topped with the word \u201cchildren\u201d the intent to give an undivided fourth to each of the named devisees with a remainder in that fourth to each devisee\u2019s children would be apparent. The children would take the fee. G.S. 31-38. But that interpretation would give no significance to the phrase \u201c& \u00a9o on.\u201d To reject those words would be to make a will for the testatrix and not interpret what she \u00a9aid. An interpretation requires an ascertainment of the meaning of the words used\u2014 each presumably ha\u00a9 some meaning. Maxwell v. Grantham, 254 N.C. 208, 118 S.E. 2d 426; Clark v. Connor, 253 N.C. 515, 117 S.E. 2d 465; Morris v. Morris, supra.\nWhat did testatrix mean by the phrase \u201c& so on\u201d? The phrase is equivalent to \u201ccontinuing in the same manner.\u201d Jones v. Assurance Society, 147 N.C. 540, 61 S.E. 388, 25 L.R.A. 803. What Mrs. Wilson meant was that each succeeding generation would take the property on the death of the ancestor \u2014 an indefinite line of succession by the children upon the death of the parent. She intended that each beneficiary should take an estate for life with remainder to heir\u00a9 of hi\u00a9 body.\nLayton, C.J., \u00a9aid in Farrell v. Faries, 22 A. 2d 380; \u201cThe words 'child and children\u2019 are primarily and presumptively words of purchase. Their technical and legal meaning is the immediate offspring and not an indefinite line of heir\u00a9 .... In their natural import they are not words of limitation unless it is to comply with the intention of the testator, when they cannot take effect in any other way .... They are properly descriptive of a particular class or generation of issue, and point at individual acquisition, not at heritable succession .... Both in law and in common parlance they have only one meaning, although they may be shown by the context to have been improperly used in the sense of descendants.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe same thought was expressed in Dodson v. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 492, 100 Am. Dec. 586, where it is \u00a9aid: \u201cThe decisions in all the cases \u00a9how the undoubted tendency of the judicial mind in 'this state to follow the true intention of the donor, and whenever he means to limit an estate to the heirs of the life tenant, no matter how his intent is expressed, an estate of inheritance will vest in the tenant for life; but when he intends his bounty to vest in certain pensoms, though they may be the same as -the bears at law, the life estate will not be enlarged . .\nSimilar statements and applications of the legal principles may be found in Mason v. Ammon, 11 A. 449; Shapley v. Diehl, 53 A. 374; Pifer v. Locke, 55 A. 790; Simpson v. Reed, 54 A. 499; Beall v. Beall, 162 N.E. 152; Gould v. Ledbetter, 150 A. 375; In re Court\u2019s Estate, 91 N.Y.S. 2d 881; In re Tone\u2019s Will, 174 N.Y.S. 391; In re Guthrie\u2019s Appeal, 37 Pa. St. 9. See also 47 Am. Jur. 805 and cases cited in note 19.\nAn important factor in ascertaining the meaning of the word \u201cchildren\u201d is, 'as noted in several of the cases, the fact that if the word \u201cchildren\u201d is not interpreted to mean 'heirs or heirs of the body, the devise miay violate the rule against perpetuities, thereby resulting in at least partial intestacy. Poindexter v. Trust Co., supra.\nHaving reached the conclusion that Mrs. Wilson uised the word \u201cchildren\u201d in the sense of \u201cheins of the body\u201d it follows that each nephew land the great-nephew took an estate tail by virtue of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, which by the statute of 1784 (G.S. 41-1) is converted into an estate in fee simple.\nWe conclude that Frank H. Spain, brother of testatrix, took an estate for his life in the property known ais the Spain place and, subject to said life estate, Iris three son\u00ae, to wit, Robert W. Spain, Franklin H. Spain, and William W. Spain, 'and his grandson, Robert W. Spain, Jr., each took an undivided one-fourth in fee in remainder. The judgment appealed from will be modified to' conform with this opinion, and a\u00ae so modified, the judgment is affirmed.\nModified and affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "RodmaN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Zollicoffer \u25a0& Zollicoffer for appellees and Sterling G. Gilliam and George T. Blackburn, guardians ad litem.", "Waddell Gholson, guardian ad litem for Eddie Jean Wiggins and Robert B. Wiggins, Jr., and William T. Watkins, Charles M. Davis, and I. Beverly Lake for respondents." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the Matter of: The Will of WILLIE SPAIN WILSON, Deceased; FRANK SPAIN, Individually, and as Administrator c.t.a. of the Estate of WILLIE SPAIN WILSON, and wife, MATTIE W. SPAIN, ROBERT W. SPAIN and wife, PEARL M. SPAIN, FRANKLIN H. SPAIN and wife, JEAN S. SPAIN and WILLIAM M. SPAIN and wife BARBARA W. SPAIN, Petitioners v. ROBERT W. SPAIN, JR., (Minor), THOMAS MOODY SPAIN (Minor), and JOHNNY CLAUDE SPAIN (Minor), CHILDREN OF ROBERT W. SPAIN, DAPHNE GAY SPAIN (Minor) and MARSHA LYNN SPAIN (Minor), CHILDREN OF FRANKLIN H. SPAIN, WILLIAM M. SPAIN, JR., (Minor), CHILD OF WILLIAM M. SPAIN, and any unborn CHILDREN OF ROBERT W. SPAIN, ROBERT W. SPAIN, JR., FRANKLIN H. SPAIN and WILLIAM M. SPAIN, MATTIE W. REAVIS, Widow, ROSA S. STAINBACK and Husband, T. G. STAINBACK, FLORENCE S. PREDDY and Husband, WILL PREDDY, LEWIS W. SPAIN and Wife, ELIZABETH P. SPAIN, W. J. COOPER, JR., Unmarried, MARY C. HAMLET and Husband, SWAYNE HAMLET, MARY W. BASKETT and Husband, CHARLES B. BASKETT, MATTIE W. PUCKETT, LUCY W. BALL and Husband, R. T. BALL, DAVE E. WIGGINS and Wife, LOLA WIGGINS, JOHN B. WIGGINS and Wife, RUTH T. WIGGINS, BETTY W. HIGHT and Husband, HARTWELL HIGHT, EDDIE JEAN WIGGINS (Minor), ROBERT B. WIGGINS, JR., (Minor), WILLIAM B. BARTHOLOMEW and Wife, MRS. WILLIAM B. BARTHOLOMEW, Defendants.\n(Filed 20 November 1963.)\n1. Wills \u00a7 27\u2014\nThe intent of testabais: is her will and must be given effect unless contrary to some rule of law.\n2. Same\u2014\nThere is a presumption that a will was intended to dispose of all of testatrix\u2019 property without leaving a residue to pass under the laws governing intestacy.\n3. Same\u2014\nIt must be presumed that each word used by testatrix has a meaning -and the court may not reject words which by reasonable interpretation may be given effect.\n4. Wills \u00a7 42\u2014\nThe word \u201cchildren\u201d is ordinarily a word of purchase and mot of limitation and means immediate offspring, but the word must ibe construed as \u201cheirs\u201d or \u201cheirs of the body\u201d when such meaning is clearly intended from the content of the instrument.\n5. Wills \u00a7 32\u2014\nTestatrix stated she \u201cwanted\u201d the land in question to go to her brother \u2022and at his death to his three sons and his named grandson, with further provision that at their deaths testatrix \u201cwanted\u201d the land to go -to their \u201cchildren & so on.\u201d Sold: The brother took a life estate with remainder to his children and the named grandson in fee under the Rule in Shelley\u2019s Case, since it is apparent 'that testatrix used 'the word \u201cchildren\u201d in the sense of an indefinite line of succession so as to attract the Buie in Shelley\u2019s Case and create an estate toil converted into a fee by the statute. G-.S. 41-1.\nAppeal by defendants from Walker, S.J., March Civil Session 1963 of VANCE.\nThis action was instituted to obtain .a judicial interpretation of a written instrument heretofore adjudged to be the 'holographic will of Willie Spain Wilson. In re Will of Wilson, 258 N.C. 310, 128 S.E. 2d 601.\nThe will dated 6 June 3950 reads:\n\u201cThis is my Will\u2014\n\u201cI Willie Spain Wilson wants my brother Frank H. Spain to have at my death the home place .given to me by my \u00a1brother R. Claude Spain at his death \u2014 Known as the Spain place. At my 'brother Frank H. Spain\u2019s death I want the place to go to his three Son\u2019s Robert W. Spain, Franklin H. Spain and William M. Spain. I also want Robert W. Spain Jr. to have an equal share 'in the place. If all can\u2019t live and farm then sell it to the one that can at a reasonable price. At there death I want the place to go to there children & so on' \u2014 I would love for it to always be \u00a1the Spain place.\n\u201cWhat money bonds & etc I have at my death after all debts are \u2022paid I want my Sister Rosa Spain. Stainback to have. I also want her to have what ipecies of furniture I have, also want her to have all my personal belongings. I want a descent burial and marker put to my grave \u2014 I have two Inis, policy\u00ae which I want my Sister Rosa Spain Stainback to have. I have one policy that I want my neice Claude Stainback Sharpe to have it is made payable to her.\u201d\nMrs. Spain -died in March 1960. Her heirs were her brother, Frank Spain., her sisters, Rosa Stainback .and Mattie Reavis, and nephews, nieces, great-nephews and great-nieces, descendants of her deceased 'brother, John S. Spain, and her deceased sister, Lou Wiggins. Subsequent to the institution of the action Mrs. Reavis died. Her 'heirs were made parties.\nMrs. Wilson\u2019\u00ae husband died in 1943. She then went to live with her brother Frank, named as a -devisee. She continued -to live with him and his family until her death in I960. Frank Spain had three children-, viz., Robert W., Franklin H., and William, named as devisees. Robert W. Spain, Jr., also- named as a -devisee, -is -the son of Robert W. Spain.\nMrs. Spain- owned at -her -death a farm in Vance Co-unty containing 130 acres. This is the land referred to in the will -as the \u201cSpain place.\u201d\nThe court adjudged that Frank H. (Spain took an estate in the farm for hie natural life, that Robert W. Spain, Franklin H. Spain, Jr., William M. Spain, and Robert W. Spain, Jr., each took an estate for their respective lives in an undivided one-fourth, subject to the life estate o\u00ed Franklin H. Spain, amid subject to such life estates, the children of Robert W. Spain took iam estate in fee in remainder in the one-fourth in which he had a, life estate, the children of Franklin H. Spain, Jr. took am estate in fee in remainder in his one-fourth, the children of William W. Spain took 'an estate in remainder in fee in his one-fourth, and the children of Robert W. Spain, Jr. took an estate in fee in remainder in his one-fourth.\nZollicoffer \u25a0& Zollicoffer for appellees and Sterling G. Gilliam and George T. Blackburn, guardians ad litem.\nWaddell Gholson, guardian ad litem for Eddie Jean Wiggins and Robert B. Wiggins, Jr., and William T. Watkins, Charles M. Davis, and I. Beverly Lake for respondents." }, "file_name": "0482-01", "first_page_order": 522, "last_page_order": 526 }