Hall v. Robinson
Decision Date | 31 December 1857 |
Citation | 3 Jones 348,56 N.C. 348 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | ANNE C. HALL, Trustee, and others, v. THOMAS ROBINSON, receiver, and another. |
Where a general right of disposition is given to the taker of an estate, a contingent limitation in remainder is inoperative and void but a limitation to one, and if he should die before arriving at full age, or if he should arrive at full age and afterwards die intestate and without issue, then to A, B, and C in remainder, was Held not to give a general right of disposition, but that the limitation over was valid.
In a conditional limitation of an estate, if the person to take is certain, his representative is entitled to the interest limited to him, although he died before the happening of the event on which the estate in remainder was to vest in possession.
As a general rule, dividends on bank stock, and interest arising from money, become the absolute property of the taker of the life-estate, and a contrary intention will not be inferred from the use of words not necessary to the sense of the bequest in which they were used, but in that connection were considered as surplusage.
CAUSE removed from the Court of Equity of Anson county.
Mrs. Rosa A. Troy, by her will bequeathed in the first clause thereof as follows:
In the sixth clause of the will, the testatrix directs that certain tracts of land, town lots and slaves shall be sold by her executrix, and then provides as follows: “The money arising from these several sales, I wish divided into six equal parts, or portions, for my six grand-children, viz: one portion for Thomas Lance, one for Robert T. Hall, one for Thomas C. Hall, one portion or sixth part for Mary W. Hall, one for Rosanna Hall, and one for Harriet Elenor Hall respectively--the three girls' parts to be held in trust, for their use and benefit, by my sister Harriet H. Strong, to whom I give and bequeath it for that purpose; should Thomas Lance die while a minor, or after coming to the age of twenty-one, leaving no will nor issues, then his sixth part shall be divided among my other five grand-children.”
After having qualified as executrix, and having proceeded to some extent in discharging the duties of that office, and as special trustee for Mary W. Hall and her sisters, Mrs. Strong, upon an application to the Court of Equity of Anson county, was released from the trust aforesaid, and Anne C. Hall, the mother of the said Mary, Rosanna and Harriet Elenor, was appointed trustee in her place. Thomas Lance, the legatee, being a person of weak mind and incapable of managing his affairs, upon a like application to the Court of Equity aforesaid, the defendant Thomas Robinson was appointed a receiver for and in behalf of the said Thomas, to whom Mrs. Strong, the executrix, paid over the whole of the legacies coming to the said Thomas under the above bequests.
Thomas Lance died in 1857, after having arrived at full age, but without leaving any issue, and without having made a will, and the bill is filed by the contingent legatees in remainder against the receiver and against the personal representative of the said Thomas, praying that the said fund, with its increase and accumulations from dividends, interest on money and profits, shall be paid to them.
During the life of Thomas Lance, one of these contingent legatees, Harriet Elenor Hall, intermarried with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Finlayson v. CABARRUS BANK & TRUST COMPANY
...Gregory v. Beasley, 36 N.C. 25; Spruill v. Moore, 40 N.C. 284; Jones v. Simmons, 42 N.C. 178; Braswell v. Morehead, 45 N.C. 26; Hall v. Robinson, 56 N.C. 348; Williams v. Cotten, 56 N.C. 395; Baker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra 173 N.C. 365, 92 S.E. 170, L.R.A.1917E, 266; Ernul v. Er......
-
Woodard v. Clark
...Gregory v. Beasley, 36 N.C. 25; Spruill v. Moore, 40 N.C. 284; Jones v. Simmons, 42 N.C. 178; Braswell v. Morehead, 45 N.C. 26; Hall v. Robinson, 56 N.C. 348; Williams v. Cotten, 56 N.C. 395; Baker v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra; Ernul v. Ernul, 191 N.C. 347, 132 S.E. When such future......
-
Daniel v. Bass
...to the estate in fee, and void." Roane v. Robinson, 189 N.C. 628, 127 S.E. 626; Carroll v. Herring, 180 N.C. 369, 104 S.E. 892; Hall v. Robinson, 56 N.C. 348. trial court erred, however, in adjudging that Mahala Daniel is the owner in fee of all the property and estate of which Isaac and Na......
-
Roane v. Robinson
... ... property is given to the taker of the first fee, such right ... is inconsistent with the second fee, and the consequence is ... that the limitation over of the second fee is inoperative and ... void. Newland v. Newland, 46 N.C. 463; Hall v ... Robinson, 56 N.C. 348. In McDaniel v. McDaniel, ... 58 N.C. 351, Chief Justice Pearson employed this language: ... "If ... one devises in fee simple, he cannot make a limitation over ... by way of executory devise without cutting down the first ... fee, in order to ... ...