Blair v. Osborne

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ASHE
• Citation: Blair v. Osborne, 84 N.C. 417 (N.C. 1881)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1881
• Parties: ALICE D. BLAIR and others v. E. A. OSBORNE and others.

84 N.C. 417

ALICE D. BLAIR and others

v.E. A. OSBORNE and others.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1881.

SPECIAL PROCEEDING for partition of land commenced before the probate court and heard at Fall Term, 1880, of MECKLENBURG Superior Court, before Seymour, J.

The defendants made the defence of “sole seizin” and thereupon the case was transferred to the superior court where several issues were submitted to the jury, all of which were found in favor of the plaintiffs, the court reserving the question as to the effect of the deed from Margaret Blair to Araminta Blair (mother of plaintiffs), which deed is as follows: “This indenture made this 21st day of November, 1863, between Margaret Blair of the one part and Araminta Blair of the other part (both of Mecklenburg, &c.,) witnesseth, that said party of the first part for and in consideration of natural love; and further, said party of the second [first] part hath given, granted and doth hereby give, grant and convey to the party of the second part, all that lot or parcel of land lying in the town of Charlotte and county of Mecklenburg (describing the property) to have and to hold the same with the appurtenances thereto belonging to Araminta Blair, the party of the second part, to her and the children begotten upon her body by S. M. Blair, forever,” * * *. Both parties claimed the land (to divide which the petition was filed) under Samuel Blair the father of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs offered the register's books of the county to show that Margaret had conveyed to plaintiffs in May, 1863, as appeared from the registry. Defendants objected to the introduction of the registry on the ground that only the original or a certified copy from the register's record was competent. The objection was overruled and defendants excepted.

Plaintiffs offered evidence to show that they were children of Araminta Blair begotten on her body by S. M. Blair; that they were in existence when the said deed from Margaret was executed, and are still infants.

Defendants offered in evidence a deed from S. M. Blair and Araminta to one J. Y. Bryce, and a mortgage from Bryce to defendant, Bodfish, and a deed from Bodfish to defendant, E. A. Osborne as the assignee of the bank of Mecklenburg.

Upon the finding of the jury, His Honor on the point of law reserved being of opinion with plaintiffs gave judgment in their favor, from which the defendants appealed.

Messrs. Wilson & Son and Dowd & Walker, for plaintiffs .

Messrs. Shipp & Bailey, for defendants .

ASHE, J.

The only question which need be considered in this case turns upon the interpretation of the deed made by Margaret to Araminta Blair. The deed operates as a covenant to stand seized to uses. In the premises of the deed, the land in dispute is given to Araminta alone, and the habendum is to her and her children. Do the children of Araminta take an immediate estate in joint-tenancy with their mother, or an estate in joint-tenancy in remainder for their lives?

The deed in the absence of any words of inheritance unquestionably conveys only a life estate to the donees, and whether the children take the estate jointly with their mother, or in remainder...