Fellows v. Durfey
Decision Date | 22 October 1913 |
Citation | 79 S.E. 621,163 N. C. 305 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | FELLOWS et al. v. DURFEY et al. |
Wills (§ 597*)—Construction—Estate Devised.
Testator by a holographic will devised to his wife all his estate, desiring her to own the same just as "I now hold and own or shall hold and own at the date of my death, " her interest to be as absolute as testator's and not to be takenas a trust to be enforced by any other court than her own conscience, etc. The next paragraph enjoined on her to reserve to herself the homestead and sufficient means for the support of herself and family, and provided that if she should marry (which event did not occur) the property should be divided between her and his children according to the statute of distribution. The next paragraph appointed her sole executrix, and added the desire that testator's interest in a mercantile firm should remain unchanged unless a change was necessary. Held, that the will vested in the widow the fee in testator's property without trust or other limitation.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 1319-1326; Dec. Dig. § 597.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Carter, Judge.
Action between E. H. Fellows and others and C. K. Durfey and others, to construe the will of Rufus S. Tucker, deceased. Judgment for the latter, and the former appeal. Reversed.
The will is as follows:
Rufus S. Tucker died August 4, 1894, seised of a large estate, real and personal, and his widow, Florence P. Tucker, who was named therein as devisee and executrix, qualified and entered into possession, claiming the property in fee under said will. She died December 11, 1909, leaving a will whereby she disposed of the property, which she had taken possession of under the terms ofher husband's will, under the belief that she possessed the same in fee simple, and at the same time disposed, without distinguishing it, of her property which she had received from other sources. The court below being of opinion that the property devised to her under the will of her husband was not held by her in fee, but in trust, so adjudged, and the defendants appealed. This action was begun September 8, 1911. The parties, plaintiffs and defendants, other than C. K. Durfey, the surviving executor named in the will of Florence P. Tucker, are her five daughters and their living husbands and the children of a deceased son.
Tillett & Guthrie, of Charlotte, and Winston & Biggs, of Raleigh, for appellants.
J. H. Pou, S. B. Shepherd, and W. H. Pace, all of Raleigh, for appellees.
The decision of this case affects the present control and custody of a large amount of property, and to a lesser extent its ultimate destination; for the will of Mrs. Tucker substantially divides it equally among her children and the children of a deceased son, share and share alike, but, with the exception of a cash devise to each and some personal property, gives her children the annual interest only, and devises the principal of each share in trust to be divided among the grandchildren at the death of their mothers. The will of Florence P. Tucker is not presented for construction, but the fact that the bulk of the principal of the estate is thus tied up during the lifetime of her children, who are to receive merely the interest, is the ground of the action on the part of the plaintiffs, who contend that the property was not devised to her by her husband in fee, and that the estate should be divided at this time.
The elementary rule for the construction of wills is that every will shall be construed to effectuate the intent of the testator, and that this intention must be gathered from the terms of the will itself. The testator was a man of large estate and of high intelligence, a graduate of the State University, and, as the will itself states, it is written entirely in his own handwriting and is dated 14 years prior to his death.
The language of the will is explicit, and the testator's intention is very clearly expressed, in these words: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Voncannon v. Hudson Belk Co. of Asheboro, N. C.
...189 N.C. 236, 126 S.E. 612; Tillett v. Nixon, 180 N.C. 195, 104 S.E. 352; Darden v. Matthews, 173 N.C. 186, 91 S.E. 835; Fellowes v. Durfey, 163 N.C. 305, 79 S.E. 621; Griffin v. Commander, 163 N.C. 230, 79 S.E. 499; Herring v. Williams, 153 N.C. 231, 69 S.E. 140; Parks v. Robinson, 138 N.C......
-
Smith v. Mears
... ... White v. White, 189 N.C. 236, 126 S.E. 612; Darden ... v. Matthews, supra; Tillett v. Nixon, 180 N.C. 195, ... 104 S.E. 352; Fellowes v. Durfey, 163 N.C. 305, 79 ... S.E. 621; Griffin v. Commander, 163 N.C. 230, 79 ... S.E. 499; Herring v. Williams, 153 N.C. 231, 69 S.E ... 140, 138 Am ... ...
-
Bullock v. Planters' Cotton Seed Oil Co.
... ... 3, 72 S.E. 1; ... Stephens v. Hicks, 156 N.C. 244, 72 S.E. 313, 36 L ... R. A. (N. S.) 354, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 272, and in Fellowes ... v. Durfey, 163 N.C. 313, 79 S.E. 621; Dunn v ... Hines, 164 N.C. 121, 80 S.E. 410 ... Whatever ... doubt might have been raised by ... ...
-
Stephens v. Clark
... ... specific purpose. Young v. Young, 68 N.C. 309; ... Witherington v. Herring, 140 N.C. 495, 53 S.E. 303, ... 6 Ann.Cas. 188; Fellowes v. Durfey, 163 N.C. 305, 79 ... S.E. 621 ... If an ... instrument is expressly and exclusively intended to create a ... trust, it ... ...