Burcham v. Burcham, 17.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 17.,17. |
| Citation | 219 N.C. 357,13 S.E.2d 615 |
| Parties | BURCHAM et al. v. BURCHAM et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Surry County; J. A. Rousseau, Judge.
Proceeding by Arthur Burcham and W. E. Burcham against Mollie (Mrs. W. J.) Burcham, individually and as administratrix of W. J. Burcham, deceased, Collie Darnell and Daniel Creed for a declaratory judgment determining the rights of the parties with respect to the will of decedent. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment modified, and, as modified, affirmed.
Ottis J. Reynolds, of Winston-Salem, and Wilson Barber and H. O. Woltz, both of Mount Airy, for appellants.
W. M. Allen and Hoke F. Henderson, both of Elkin, for appellee Collie Darnell.
Parks Hampton, of Elkin, and Folger & Folger, of Mount Airy, for other appellees.
This is a proceeding brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act to determine the rights of the parties with respect to the will of W. J. Burcham, deceased.
The will is as follows:
Arthur Burcham I will one Dollar. Callie Darnell I will One Dollar-- "Secion two.
The plaintiffs contend that the effect of this will is to create a trust estate out of which testator's wife and beneficiary shall receive support according to the terms of the will for her natural life, with condition that such support shall terminate upon her remarriage; that, therefore, regardless of the other provisions of the will, the plaintiffs have a fee-simple estate by inheritance, subject to a charge upon the said estate for the support of Mollie Burcham, and subject to such valid distribution of the personal property as might be made under the will.
The defendants contend that, upon a proper interpretation of the will, Mollie Burcham is seized of a determinable fee in the whole property, subject to termination upon her remarriage, and that the plaintiffs have no interest therein. On perusal of the will and consideration of these contentions the trial judge entered a judgment favorable to the view taken by the defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.
The main controversy is over the construction of Section 2 of the will: While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poindexter v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
...Honeycutt, supra, it is said: '* * * (T)he doctrine of devise or bequest by implication is well established in our law. Burcham v. Burcham, 219 N.C. 357, 13 S.E.2d 615. See also Burney v. Holloway, 225 N.C. 633, 36 S.E.2d 5; Efird v. Efird, 234 N.C. 607, 68 S.E.2d 279.' There was no limitat......
-
Mangum v. Wilson, 740
...devise of the property itself, and will pass the fee, unless the will shows an intent to pass an estate of less dignity. Burcham v. Burcham, 219 N.C. 357, 13 S.E.2d 615; Schwren v. Falls, 170 N.C. 251, 87 S.E. 49, L.R.A.1916B, 1235; Perry v. Hackney, 142 N.C. 368, 55 S.E. 289, 19 Am. Jur., ......
-
Wing v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N. A.
...S.E.2d 478; Efird v. Efird, 234 N.C. 607, 68 S.E.2d 279 (1951); Burney v. Holloway, 225 N.C. 633, 36 S.E.2d 5 (1945); Burcham v. Burcham, 219 N.C. 357, 13 S.E.2d 615 (1941); Ferrand v. Jones, 37 N.C. (2 Ired.Eq.) 633 (1843); see generally, 4 Bowe-Parker: Page on Wills, § 30.18 (4th ed. 1961......
-
Bank v. Am. Children's Home
...opinion that he has on the whole will sufficiently declared.’ ” Finch, 246 N.C. at 98, 97 S.E.2d at 484 (quoting Burcham v. Burcham, 219 N.C. 357, 359, 13 S.E.2d 615, 616 (1941)). Here, the parties do not dispute that, in the First Codicil, Settlor instructed that the assets comprising the ......