{
  "id": 2091795,
  "name": "DAVID KINCAID v. ISAAC LOWE and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kincaid v. Lowe",
  "decision_date": "1866-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "41",
  "last_page": "43",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Phil. Eq. 41"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 N.C. 41"
    }
  ],
  "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": 193,
    "char_count": 2483,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.418,
    "sha256": "44dca7c5c6849f438ff16d04efbb1a2bbfc4b42361190cd11d835e040b216ee3",
    "simhash": "1:2eea46c4b8f4713b",
    "word_count": 427
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:26.929259+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID KINCAID v. ISAAC LOWE and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nThe difficulty, which is shown by the pleadings, does not arise from any complication in the construction of the will of David Kincaid, Sen., but grows out of the alleged uncertainty of what is meant in that will, by the expression, \u201cthe Linebarger plantation.\u201d This is a plain case of latent ambiguity, as to which it is equally plain that it may be removed by parol testimony ; The President, Directors, &c. v. Norwood, Bus. Eq., 65, and the cases therein referred to and commented upon. Testimony has accordingly been taken, and it proves, beyond all question, that by \u201cthe Linebarger plantation\u201d the testator meant all the land he had originally purchased from Alexander Brevard, a part of which he had afterwards sold to David Linebarger, who settled upon and improved it, and then resold it to the testator. The reason, why the testator called the whole tract purchased of Brevard by the name of \u201c the Linebarger plantation,\u201d was, no doubt, because the only settlement upon it was that made by Linebarger. At all events, it is certain that he did call the whole tract by that name, and as such gave it in for taxation, for several years before his death. The parol testimony on this subject is strengthened by the fact that the testator does not mention any land except the two tracts which he devises under the .name of \u201cthe plantation on which I now live,\u201d and \u201cthe Linebarger plantation;\u201d and yet it is manifest from his will that he intended to dispose of all his estate, both real and personal.\nThere must be a decree for partition according to this opinion. The. share of James Kincaid, who died before the testator, must, of course, be equally divided among all the pai\u2019ties, and the costs of the suit must be paid by the complainant and defendants, in proportion to their respective shares.\nPer Curiam.\nDecree accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bynum, for the complainant.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID KINCAID v. ISAAC LOWE and others.\nThe rule, that latent ambiguities in wills may he-explained by parol evidence, approved of and applied. (\u201c Einebarger Plantation.\u201d)\nDecree as to costs in a suit for partition of land.\n(The case of President, Directors, $e. v Norwood, Bus. Eq., 65, cited and appioved.)\nOriginal Bill, filed to Spring Term, 1864, of the Court of Equity for Lincoln county.\nThe purpose of the suit was to obtain a partition, of a; tract of land described in a will as \u201c the Linebarger plantation.\u201d\nNo further statement of facts is required by the opinion.\nBynum, for the complainant.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0041-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 51
}