Crouse v. Barham

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN, J.
• Citation: Crouse v. Barham, 174 N.C. 460, 93 S.E. 979 (N.C. 1917)
• Decision Date: 31 October 1917
• Docket Number: 330.
• Parties: CROUSE ET AL. v. BARHAM ET AL. (CHRISMON ET AL., INTERPLEADERS).

93 S.E. 979

174 N.C. 460

CROUSE ET AL. v. BARHAM ET AL. (CHRISMON ET AL., INTERPLEADERS).

No. 330.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 31, 1917

Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; Connor, Judge.

Petition for partition by Lester Crouse and another against Davis Barham and others, in which Lewis C. Chrismon and others interpleaded. Judgment for plaintiffs, and interpleaders appeal. No error.

In order to effectuate testator's intention, words may, when necessary, be changed.

The petitioners are the two devisees under the will of Henry G Chrismon; the defendants, Davis Barham and others are the children of Mary E. Barham; the interpleaders Lewis C Chrismon and others are the brothers and sisters, heirs at law of the testator, Henry G. Chrismon. The matter before the court is the proper construction of the will of said Chrismon, which reads as follows:

"I Henry G. Chrismon of the aforesaid County and State being of sound mind but considering the uncertainty of my Earthly Existence do make and declare this my last will and testament.

First; my executor hereinafter named shall give my Body a decent Burial suitable to the wishes of my friends and Relatives and pay all funeral Expenses together with all my just debts out of the first moneys which may come into his hands belonging to my estate.

Second) I give and devise to my beloved wife Mary J. Chrismon the tract of land on which I now reside containing one hundred and Forty Acher aulso the tomas Place Twenty Two acher aulso the place I Got from my father containing thirty eight achers and aul my intier Stock Horses and cattel Grain and feed to have her life Time with a decent burial with the tome Rocks to cost one hundred and Twenty five dollars.

Third) I Give and devise to Lester Crouse and Mary E. Barham and Mary E. Barhem to have and her children to be divided between Lester Crouse and Mary E. Barnham

(Turn over)

I aulso want the land devided by three disinterested persons at my wifes deth."

It is admitted that Mary J. Chrismon is dead. The court rendered judgment that the plaintiffs are the owners in fee as tenants in common of the land described in the will, and rendered judgment accordingly, from which the interpleaders Lewis C. Chrismon and others, the heirs at law of the testator, appealed.

W. H. Carroll, of Burlington, for appellants.

Parker & Long, of Graham, for appellees.

BROWN J.

It is unnecessary to consider whether the children of Mary E. Barham took any estate under the will of Henry G. Chrismon, as they did not appeal and appear to be content with the judgment of the court in favor of their mother. The interpleaders, the brothers and sisters of the testator, alone appealed. They admit that the testator "by his last will and testament did devise and bequeath all his real and personal property to his wife, Mary J. Chrismon, for the term of her natural life. And these defendants aver that subject to the life estate given and devised to Mary J. Chrismon, their brother Henry G. Chrismon died intestate." The contention is that the will in so far as it undertakes to devise anything to plaintiffs is void for uncertainty and lack of any designation of the property intended to be devised.

In the construction of a will the primary object is to ascertain from the context of the will as well as the condition of the testator's family and the circumstances surrounding him his real intention. The will of the testator is crudely and inartificially drawn, but there are two pregnant facts that indicate plainly his purpose: (1) The objects of his bounty were his wife and the two plaintiffs, the infants whom he had taken into his family and reared as his own children. It was natural and proper that ...