{
  "id": 2091809,
  "name": "A. J. FALLS and ROBERT TORRENCE, Executors, &c., v. DAVID McCULLOCH and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Falls v. McCulloch",
  "decision_date": "1867-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "140",
  "last_page": "140",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Phil. Eq. 140"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 N.C. 140"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 Mur., 178",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687428
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/7/0178-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1513,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29102546132998486
    },
    "sha256": "1abdd99e700905f7030b43ccdc5c552187dd62894f50dd8a892b473c8e4b4c0d",
    "simhash": "1:864c58563a01f277",
    "word_count": 269
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:26.929259+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. J. FALLS and ROBERT TORRENCE, Executors, &c., v. DAVID McCULLOCH and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reabe, J.\nThe clause of the will upon Avliich the advice of the court is asked is as follows:\n\u201cThe balance of my property I allow to be sold and my just debts paid. The negroes to be sold at my wife\u2019s death and equally divided among all my children.\u201d\nSome of the children died after the testator and in the lifetime of the tenant for life. The question is, was the remainder vested, so that the representatives of the deceased children take.\nIt is a vested remainder, and the representatives of the deceased children do take.\nThe doctrine governing this case is settled in the case of Conly v. Kincade, Win. Eq., 44.\nPer Curiam.\nDecree accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reabe, J. Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bynum, for the complainants.",
      "No counsel for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. J. FALLS and ROBERT TORRENCE, Executors, &c., v. DAVID McCULLOCH and others.\nA legacy of property, \u201cto be sold at my wife\u2019s death and equally divided among all my children,\u201d is vested; and therefore the representatives of such children as survived the testator and died before the wife are entitled to shares.\n(Conly y. JGncade, Win. Eq., 4A, cited and approved.)\nBill, by, executors, praying for advice and a construction of a clause in a will, filed to Spring Term, 1865, of the Court of Equity for Gaston, and at Fall Term, 1866, taken pro confesso, and transferred to this court.\nThe facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.\nBynum, for the complainants.\nThe legacy is vested. Anderson v. Fulton, 1 Ire. Eq., 55; Vanhook v. Rogers, 3 Mur., 178; Chambers v. Bayne, 6 Jon. Eq., 276; Conly v. Eincade, Win. Eq., 44.\nNo counsel for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0140-01",
  "first_page_order": 148,
  "last_page_order": 148
}