Matthews' Adm'r v. Daniel
| Decision Date | 30 June 1805 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | MATTHEWS' ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., v. DANIEL, EXECUTOR, ETC. |
A bequeaths a negro and horse to B, and declared that if B should depart this life without heir lawfully begotten of her body, the negro and horse should belong to C. The limitation to C is too remote.
THE bill charged that Judith Brinkley by her last will bequeathed "to her daughter, Elizabeth Harris, a negro fellow named Bob and a bay horse, and declared that if her daughter should depart this life without heir lawfully begotten of her body, the said negro and horse should belong to Anne Daniel." That the complainant, James Matthews, intermarried with the said Elizabeth Harris, who some time afterwards died, and complainant obtained letters of administration on her estate; that the defendant, Lewis Daniel, was at the time of the bequest aforesaid intermarried with the said Anne Daniel, and was appointed executor of the last will of the said Judith Brink-ley; that he had proved the will and qualified as executor; and since the death of complainant's wife Elizabeth, had set up a claim to the said negro and horse under the will of Judith Brinkley, and refused to deliver the said negro and horse to complainant. The bill charged that complainant was advised the absolute property of the said negro and horse vested in Elizabeth, the legatee first named in the said bequest, and prayed that defendant might be compelled to deliver them to complainant or to submit to such other decree as the court might make in the premises. To this bill the defendant demurred, and the complainant having joined in demurrer, the case was sent to this Court for the opinion of the judges.
BY THE COURT. Anne Daniel was to take the negro and horse, if Elizabeth Harris should depart this life "without heir lawfully begotten of her body." This is in substance a limitation over after a dying without issue. The limitation is too remote. The absolute property vested in the first legatee, and the demurrer must be overruled.
Cited: Bice v. Satterwhite, 21 N. C., 71.
NOTE.—If this decision be correct, it would seem that in construing devises the court will not look to the subject-matter of the devise as a circumstance from which the intention of the testator may be inferred; for it is evident that in limitations of interests in individual animals, whose period of existence is shorter than that of man, the limitations over must vest, if at all, within the period of a life or lives in being and twenty-one years afterwards. In
construing devises, the object of the court is to ascertain the intention of the testator, and, if legal, to give it effect. In inferring this intention from circumstances, where it is not plainly expressed, courts are governed by certain technical rules, which have been established for the purpose of aiding the court to find out the intention. Among these rules, one which seems to have the most extensive influence is this, "that...
To continue reading
Request your trial