{
  "id": 8682076,
  "name": "WILLIAM D. PICKETT and JOHN L. PICKETT vs. DAVID J. SOUTHERLAND AND OTHERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pickett v. Southerland",
  "decision_date": "1864-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "67",
  "last_page": "69",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Win. 67"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 N.C. 67"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Jones Eq., 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688255
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/55/0202-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Jones Eq., 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Jones Eq., 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688255
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/55/0202-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Jones Eq., 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3262,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.327,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20790053783058396
    },
    "sha256": "7ad741d9cd71608e7c0480131e203fa6e4d51629f520fc6cc5961943fb863ae0",
    "simhash": "1:7a2082fe768eec9c",
    "word_count": 592
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:24:57.689025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM D. PICKETT and JOHN L. PICKETT vs. DAVID J. SOUTHERLAND AND OTHERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PjiAiisox, C. J.\nBy its proper construction, the clause in the will of Mary Rhodes, .which has given rise, to this controversy, should read, \u201c I give and bequeath to all'the rest of the children of my niece, Mary Piekett, as well those sbe may hereafter hare, as those she now has, two slaves, Maria and Jim, to share equally.\"\nThis removes all. obscurity : and by-it, all of the children (except Mary Jane) as well males as females, and as well those born after the death of the testatrix as those born before, are entitled to a share, Shin vs. Motley, 3 Jones Eq., 491. Shull vs. Johnson, 2 Jones Eq., 202, are directly in point; and the question in regard to after born children, when there is an express intention to include them, although there bo no intervening estate, is frilly explained.\nDecree accordingly. Costs to be paid out of the fund.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PjiAiisox, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Strong for the plaintiffs.",
      "No counsel for the defendants in. this Court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DECEMBER TERM, 1864.\nWILLIAM D. PICKETT and JOHN L. PICKETT vs. DAVID J. SOUTHERLAND AND OTHERS.\nA bt quest in these, words (afler a biqiust lo A. a daughter of Mary Pickett) \u201c I give and bequeath t<v\u00bbH t>-q rest of my nieces Mary Pick-etts (Mklien that \u00a1bo now has or nun hereafter lavo Maria and Jim Li \u00a1hv equally, the above negroes \u00a1o nmain in the lands, &e.\u201d Mary PIA :t h.ivi-ig, at the tiras wku the -'-\u00a1\u00a1I wets made, no other daughter tirui A. 'm1: two sons, is a gift to -til the children of Mary Pickett v'.'h:-:l) s'10 then had (except A.) or might.at any timo thereafter have, vvhe-li-r in the. life time of the testatrix or after her death. ,\n'fnc eases Shin rs. M-itity, 3 Jones Eq., 491, and Shull vs. JoIkscd, 2 Jones Eq., 202, cited and approvid.\nThis cause was removed from the Court of Equity of Duplin county to tjiis Court for trial.\nMary Rhodes died in tbe year 1832, having, a -short time before, made her-will, hy which she gave to Mary \u00bffane Pickett, the daughter of the testatrix\u2019s niece, Mary Pickett, some property; and then bequeathed as follows:' \u25a0?/ I give to all the rest of my nieces Mary Picketts children tliat she now has or may hereafter have Maria and Jim to sliare equally, the above negroes to remain in the hands of the manager of my will &c.\u201d\nWhen the will was made Mary Pickett had three children, Mary Jane and two sons. No others were born during the life of the testatrix ; hut, after' the testatrix's, death, she had five children, some of each sex.\nThe words and the punctuation of the will are copied with exactness in the foregoing quotation.\nThe plaintiffs are the survivors of the two sons of Mary Pickett who were in existence when .the will was made, and the administrator \u00fai\u00a1c ether, who died'after testatrix\u2019s death. They claim tin; whole of the legacy, on, the ground that the word \u201c nieces \u201d should he read as if written niece's, and the words \u201cshe may hereafter have\" should be construed as if the words \u201cduring my lifetime\u201d were added. The defendants are the children of Mary Pickett, born after the death of the testatrix. The sons claim that the legacy\u2018should he divided among all the children of Mary Pickett: the. daughters claim the whole legacy, by force of the word meces. Mary Pickett was the niece of the testatrix, and is so described in a preceding part of the will.\nStrong for the plaintiffs.\nNo counsel for the defendants in. this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0067-01",
  "first_page_order": 69,
  "last_page_order": 71
}