{
  "id": 8682476,
  "name": "Doe on demise of ALEX. RILEY vs. RICHMOND BUCHANAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Riley v. Buchanan",
  "decision_date": "1864-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "89",
  "last_page": "91",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Win. 89"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 N.C. 89"
    }
  ],
  "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": 263,
    "char_count": 3279,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.34,
    "sha256": "e01d5688d13567d36621b5bd8f488cdef1cfc49ac027f5bcecf1ff637d0b4d70",
    "simhash": "1:094a7946e2939b8b",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:24:57.689025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doe on demise of ALEX. RILEY vs. RICHMOND BUCHANAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Manly, J.\nUpon the case agreed-, this Court is of opinion with the plaintiff, \u2019The controversy arises upon ihe construction of the following paragraph in the will of Henry Buchanan: .\n\u201c5 th item. I give and devise to Alexander Riley one tract of land on wbicb I now livej known as tlie Dickson tract of land7 for him and his mother and the rest of the children to live on, untiT.the youngest become of age ; also, a negro boy named Alfred, &c.\u201d\nThe question is, whether Alexander Riley take* a fe\u00ab simple in the land, or a term, to last only through the minority of the youngest child. There .is a general residuary paragraph in the following words :\n\u201c \u00edth item. I give-and bequeath to iny son, Richmond, all the remaining part of my property, or all my property not otherwise disposed of; and should Richmond die\u201d <fec. The legatee, Richmond, herein named, who is the defendant in this suit, claims the remainder in the land after the arrival at age (21) of the youngest child; which event has happened.\n\u25a0\u25a0 The language of the paragraph and the silence of the will in all its parts as to any remainder in land, lead to the conclusion that it was testator\u2019s intention to give the entire legal estate to Alexander Riley.\n\u201c I give and devise to Alexander Riley one tract of land,\u201d is.not the language which a testator- usually, employs,-when carving out a particular estate in land. \u201c I lend\" or \u201cI giye until,\u201d would be more obvious and natural.\nThere is no all usion in any part of the will to a supposed remainder in this important portion of his estate ; and there is nothing in the residuary item to induce a belief that it was then, in any way, present to his mind. Our duty, therefore, is plainly indicated by the rule of construction laid down in.the statute law, Revised Code, oh. 118, sec. 26, which is in these words: u when real estate shall be'clevised to any person, the same shall he held and construed to be a devise in fee simple, unless \u25a0such devis\u00e9 shall, in plain and express words, show, or it shall be plainly intended by the will, or some part thereof, that the testator intended to- convey an estate of' less dignity.\u201d\n. The gift, by virtue of this declared will of the Legisla*-, ture, must then be held to be a gift in fee simple, for there is nothing in the will to qualify or limit it. The words annexed to the gift, \u201c for him and his mother and the rest of the children to live on until the youngest becomes of age,\u201d seem to be an inartificial way of creating a trust for a limited term, and may well be interpreted in that sense. Indeed, we eannot suppose that it was the intention of the testator, in so obscure \" a way, te qualify his former words of bequest, and to limit an estate for a tferm of years only.\nThere must be a judgment affirming that .below, viz; that the plaintiff recover his term, &c.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Manly, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "11. BvlU: for lessor of the plaintiff.",
      "Wi-noton, Sr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doe on demise of ALEX. RILEY vs. RICHMOND BUCHANAN.\nA devkc \" to Alexander Riley Rw him and his mother and the rest of the ' ch\u00fcdvi >i 1.0* live- on until the youngest becomes of age,\u201d is a gift of the fee simple (o A. E.\nThis was an action o\u00ed ejectment tried before \u25a0 Fakncit, J., at Spring Term of Anson Superior Court,\nThe case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.\n11. BvlU: for lessor of the plaintiff.\nWi-noton, Sr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0089-01",
  "first_page_order": 205,
  "last_page_order": 207
}