{ "id": 8570430, "name": "ROSALIE EUGENIA STIER CALVERT RAY, Executrix of the Will of ROSALIE EUGENIA STIER CALVERT, and ROSALIE EUGENIA STIER CALVERT RAY, Individually, v. DAVID RANDOLPH RAY, GEORGE CALVERT RAY and Other Children who may Hereafter be Born to ROSALIE EUGENIA STIER CALVERT RAY, and JAMES MACRAE, Guardian ad Litem", "name_abbreviation": "Ray v. Ray", "decision_date": "1967-06-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "715", "last_page": "721", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "270 N.C. 715" } ], "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": "56 S.E. 2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629541 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E. 2d 906", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "910" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621349 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "127" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 S.E. 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "658" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650042 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/101/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S.E. 825", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "827" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N.C. 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654323 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "298" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N.C. 771", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626195 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0771-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 814", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "815" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626328 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 S.E. 418", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453-454" }, { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217873 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 503", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N.C. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271448 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/163/0241-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "351" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596557 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 S.E. 394", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N.C. 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655802 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E. 15", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655395 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S.E. 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 N.C. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659650 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0256-01" ] }, { "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": "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": "146 S.E. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560364 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 N.C. 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2101531 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/40/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 S.E. 2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575296 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 N. C. L. Rev. 49", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 S.E. 37", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 N.C. 120", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657377 ], "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0120-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S.E. 60", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N.C. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654027 ], "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S.E. 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N.C. 662", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631334 ], "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0662-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 152", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N.C. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616497 ], "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E. 2d 404", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628623 ], "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 2d 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219555 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 S.E. 2d 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623605 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 S.E. 2d 457", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11304284 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0435-01" ] }, { "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": "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": "138 S.E. 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "28" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217752 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E. 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "313" } ], "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": "133 S.E. 2d 666", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8576251 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S.E. 2d 65", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574849 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0204-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 724, "char_count": 14298, "ocr_confidence": 0.559, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1283656628672229e-07, "percentile": 0.5751897118326204 }, "sha256": "05bf5a844d44685e231fcc9dca12bfa461996af87f3e748f842d19408a4da1d3", "simhash": "1:e10b81e2a3446c1f", "word_count": 2548 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:56.885447+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ROSALIE EUGENIA STIER CALVERT RAY, Executrix of the Will of ROSALIE EUGENIA STIER CALVERT, and ROSALIE EUGENIA STIER CALVERT RAY, Individually, v. DAVID RANDOLPH RAY, GEORGE CALVERT RAY and Other Children who may Hereafter be Born to ROSALIE EUGENIA STIER CALVERT RAY, and JAMES MACRAE, Guardian ad Litem." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Shaep, J.\nWhenever applicable, the rule in Shelley\u2019s case applies to both real and personal property in this jurisdiction. Riegel v. Lyerly, 265 N.C. 204, 143 S.E. 2d 65; Chappell v. Chappell, 260 N.C. 737, 133 S.E. 2d 666; Martin v. Knowles, 195 N.C. 427, 142 S.E. 313; Welch v. Gibson, 193 N.C. 684, 138 S.E. 25; Hampton v. Griggs, 184 N.C. 13, 113 S.E. 501; Starnes v. Hill, 112 N.C. 1, 16 S.E. 1011. There are many statements of the rule. One, approved by the Court in Martin v. Knowles, supra at 429, 142 S.E. at 313, is:\n\u201cThe rule in Shelley\u2019s case says, in substance, that if an estate of freehold be limited to A., with remainder to his heirs, general or special, the remainder, although importing an independent gift to the heirs, as original takers, shall confer the inheritance on A., the ancestor.\u201d\nThe question posed by this appeal is whether the rule applies to Article 2 of Mrs. Calvert\u2019s will, the substance of which is: I give all my estate to my daughter R for life, to do with as she desires, then to the heirs of her body, if any; but if she should predecease me without heirs of the body, then to 14 nieces and nephews subsequently named.\nThe final clause in the devise was a substitutional gift to testatrix\u2019 nieces and nephews in the event the primary object of her bounty, Mrs. Ray, should predecease her without heirs of her body. Whitley v. McIver, 220 N.C. 435, 17 S.E. 2d 457; Early v. Tayloe, 219 N.C. 363, 13 S.E. 2d 609. \u201cGifts are said to be substitutional when provision is made for someone to take the gift in the event of the death of the original beneficiary before the period of distribution. . . . Words of substitution become inoperative by the vesting of the gift, devise, or bequest in the primary taker.\u201d 96 C.J.S., Wills \u00a7 737 (1957). Therefore, when Mrs. Ray survived testatrix, the sub-stitutional clause was eliminated, leaving the devise to Mrs. Ray, \u201cto do with as she so desires during her lifetime, and at her death to the heirs of her body, if any. . . .\u201d\nHad the final phrase, if any, been omitted from the devise, we surmise that defendants would not have questioned the applicability of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case. A devise to A for life and at her death to the heirs of her body presents a classic case for its application. Hammer v. Brantley, 244 N.C. 71, 92 S.E. 2d 424; Lide v. Mears, 231 N.C. 111, 56 S.E. 2d 404; Helms v. Collins, 200 N.C. 89, 156 S.E. 152; Bradley v. Church, 195 N.C. 662, 143 S.E. 211; Bank v. Dortch, 186 N.C. 510, 120 S.E. 60; Daniel v. Harrison, 175 N.C. 120, 95 S.E. 37. See Block, The Rule in Shelley\u2019s Case in North Carolina, 20 N. C. L. Rev. 49, 64 (1941). By such a devise, the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, and the doctrine of merger, give A an estate tail which G.S. 41-1 converts into a fee simple. In re Will of Wilson, 260 N.C. 482, 133 S.E. 2d 189. Defendants contend, however, that when testatrix used the words heirs of her body, she was not using the term in its unrestricted technical sense as the lineal descendants of her daughter \u201cwho, from generation to generation become entitled by descent under the entail.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (4th Ed., 1951) 856; In re Will of Wilson, supra. On the contrary, they argue that she used the term descriptio persones,, referring to the children or \u2022issue of her daughter who might be living at the daughter\u2019s death; that she did not mean successive generations of children, each generation of which should take under the entail. When the term heirs of the body is used in its technical sense, it imports a class of persons to take indefinitely in succession, from generation to generation. Donnell v. Mateer, 40 N.C. 7.\nFrom their premise that testatrix did not use heirs of the body in its technical sense, defendants argue, therefore, that the rule in Shelley\u2019s case is inapplicable, for, unless the language of the instrument discloses that the words heirs or heirs of the body were used to designate an indefinite line of succession from generation to generation, the rule is irrelevant. Wright v. Vaden, 266 N.C. 299, 146 S.E. 2d 31. In support of this contention, defendants rely upon Rollins v. Keel, 115 N.C. 68, 20 S.E. 209; Francks v. Whitaker, 116 N.C. 518, 21 S.E. 175; Sain v. Baker, 128 N.C. 256, 38 S.E. 858; Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N.C. 344, 74 S.E. 15; Pugh v. Allen, 179 N.C. 307, 102 S.E. 394; Hampton v. Griggs, supra; Welch v. Gibson, supra. In his opinion in Welch v. Gibson, supra at 691, 138 S.E. at 28, Stacy, C.J., stated the rule of these cases as follows:\n\u201cWhen there is an ulterior limitation which provides that upon the happening of a given contingency, the estate is to be taken out of the first lines of descent and then put back into the same line, in a restricted manner, by giving it to some, but not to all, of those who presumptively would have shared in the estate as being potentially among the heirs general of the first taker, this circumstance may be used as one of the guides in ascertaining the paramount intention of the testator, and, with other indicia, it has been held sufficient to show that the words \u2018heirs\u2019 or \u2018heirs of the body\u2019 were not used in their technical sense.\u201d\nThe foregoing statement points up the distinction between the instruments construed in those cases and Mrs. Calvert\u2019s will. In each of the foregoing cases, the Court concluded that the author of the instrument had used the words heir or heirs, bodily heirs, or heirs of the body, to mean children or issue (thereby eliminating the application of the rule in Shelley\u2019s case) because there was an ulterior limitation over to a restricted class of heirs of the first taker or life tenant upon his death without \u201cheirs\u201d or \u201cheirs of the body.\u201d\nThe rule of construction enunciated in Welch v. Gibson, supra, can have no application to Article 2 of Mrs. Calvert\u2019s will because it contains no limitation over in the event Mrs. Ray should die without heirs of her body after the death of testatrix. Testatrix\u2019 nieces and nephews, although cousins of Mrs. Ray and therefore presumptively among her heirs general, were to take only in the event Mrs. Ray died without heirs of the body before Mrs. Calvert\u2019s death.\nThis case is controlled by Glover v. Glover, 224 N.C. 152, 29 S.E. 2d 350, wherein the plaintiff devised title to land under a deed \u201cto him his lifetime, and at his death to his heirs, if any.\u201d In holding that the conveyance invoked the rule in Shelley\u2019s case and vested the fee in the plaintiff, this Court said: \u201cThe use of the phrase \u2018if any\u2019 following the word heirs may not be held to prevent the application of the rule, since there is no limitation over. This distinguishes this case from Puckett v. Morgan, 158 N.C. 344, 74 S.E. 15, and Jones v. Whichard, 163 N.C. 241, 79 S.E. 503, relied on by defend-, ant.\u201d Id. at 152, 29 S.E. 2d at 351.\nFoley v. Ivey, 193 N.C. 453, 137 S.E. 418, involved a deed in which the description was followed by this clause, \u201cthis deed shall hold good to and for the said F. B., Jr., during his natural life and after that to the heirs of his body only.\u201d In holding that the rule in Shelley\u2019s case applied, this Court said:\n\u201cIn our opinion the addition to the usual formula of the word \u2018only\u2019 is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that the phrase \u2018heirs of his body\u2019 was not employed in the usual technical sense, but on the other hand as indicating issue or children. It will be noted that there is no limitation over in the event of the grantee\u2019s death without \u2018bodily heirs,\u2019 or \u2018heirs of his body,\u2019 . . . and in this respect several of the cases cited in the appellants\u2019 brief are distinguishable from the case under consideration.\u201d Id. at 453-454, 137 S.E. at 418. (Italics ours.)\nIn Sharpe v. Isley, 219 N.C. 753, 14 S.E. 2d 814, testator devised all his property to his wife, \u201cto her and her heirs by me.\u201d He then added, \u201cMy wife is to have the exclusive and sole use of both my personal and real property and should she have living heirs by me, then all my estate . . . shall belong to her and her heirs in fee simple.\u201d No children were born to testator and his wife, and the question was whether the subsequent words, \u201cand should she have living heirs by me, then all my estate . . . shall belong to her and her heirs in fee simple\u201d limited, the wife to a life estate. In holding that the wife took a fee tail estate, converted by G.S. 41-1 into a fee simple, the Court said:\n\u201cIf the testator had incorporated in his will a provision for a limitation over in the event his wife did not have \u2018living heirs\u2019 or children by him, a different situation would have been presented. . . . But there are no such words here and we may not add them to the will in order to serve a supposed intent. The intention of the testator must be ascertained from the language in which it is expressed, and it is the duty of the court to give the words used their legal effect.\u201d Id. at 754, 14 S.E. 2d at 815.\nCf. Williams v. R. R., 200 N.C. 771, 158 S.E. 473, and Sharpe v. Brown, 177 N.C. 294, 298, 98 S.E. 825, 827 (cases in which the de-visee, under the rule in Shelley\u2019s case, took a fee, subject to be divested for failure of issue).\nThere is no language in Mrs. Calvert\u2019s will to rebut the presumption that she used the words heirs of her body in their technical sense. The \u201creal intention recognized and enforced by the law is that expressed in the will, and this is to be ascertained by a legal interpretation of the language employed to express it.\u201d Leathers v. Gray, 101 N.C. 162, 165, 7 S.E. 657, 658. When a grantor or testator uses technical words or phrases in disposing of property, he is deemed to have used them in their well-known legal or technical sense unless, in some appropriate way, he indicates in the instrument that a different meaning shall be ascribed to them. Whitley v. Arenson, 219 N.C. 121, 127, 12 S.E. 2d 906, 910; \u201c(O)therwise, technical words have no certain meaning or effect,\u201d Pittman v. Stanley, 231 N.C. 327, 329, 56 S.E. 2d 657, 659.\nWe hold that Article 2 of Mrs. Calvert\u2019s will comes within the rule in Shelley\u2019s case. Mrs. Ray, therefore, acquired an estate tail which G.S. 41-1 converted into a fee simple.\nThe judgment of the court below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Shaep, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Maupin, Taylor & Ellis for plaintiff appellee.", "MacRae, Cobb