Moore v. Langston, 456
| Decision Date | 16 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 456,456 |
| Citation | 111 S.E.2d 627,251 N.C. 439 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Helen B. MOORE v. Allen LANGSTON, Executor of the Estate of Grace B. Neal, Deceased; Elizabeth Neal Franklin and husband, Worth H. Franklin; and Natalie Neal Blomquist and husband, George B. Blomquist. |
Clem B. Holding, Harris, Poe & Cheshire, by W. C. Harris, Jr., Raleigh, for plaintiff, appellee.
Allen Langston, Fletcher & Lake, by I. Beverly Lake, Raleigh, for defendants, appellants.
In passing on this appeal, it becomes necessary to determine whether the first codicil was intended merely as the expression of a wish or advice to the two daughters, or whether it constituted a valid and enforceable bequest to the plaintiff.
At the date of the first codicil the testatrix was receiving from the two rental properties approximately $2,000 per month. She conveyed these properties to the corporation which she helped to organize. In payment she received stock in the corporation and its note for $50,000. The note, subject to a credit of $3,000, and a substantial block of stock in the corporation belonged to her at the time of death. It does not appear she had other rental property. At that time, the corporation was receiving approximately $2,000 per month rent from the apartments and the bowling center.
In determining the effect of the first codicil, resort must be had to all parts of the will, and, if necessary, to the attendant circumstances surrounding the testatrix at the time she made it. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Wolfe, 245 N.C. 535, 96 S.E.2d 690. If the words used in a will do not of themselves make perfectly plain the maker's intent, the court may consider the circumstances and conditions surrounding the maker in order to determine the meaning. "The discovery of the intent of the testator as expressed in his will is the dominant and controlling objective of testamentary construction, for the intent of the testator, as so expressed, is his will.' Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Schneider, 235 N.C. 446, 70 S.E.2d 578, 581; Woodard v. Clark, 234 N.C. 215, 66 S.E.2d 888; Heyer v. Bulluck, 210 N.C. 321, 186 S.E. 356. ' The intention of the testator need not be declared in express terms.' Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Schneider, supra; Efird v. Efird, 234 N.C. 607, 68 S.E.2d 279; Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Miller, 223 N.C. 1, 25 S.E.2d 177. ' And greater regard is to be given to the dominant purpose of the testator than to the use of any particular words.' Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Schneider, supra; Geyer v. Bulluck, supra; Allen v. Cameron, 181 N.C. 120, 106 S.E. 484'; Morris v. Morris, 246 N.C. 314, 98 S.E.2d 298, 300.
What interest, if any, did the testatrix bequeath to the plaintiff by the first codicil? The codicil begins with the statement that the wish is 'to be carried out in my will.' (Emphasis added.) It provides that the $200 payment shall be terminated by the death of the legatee. Then follows: 'I want Natalie Neal and Elizabeth Neal Franklin to see that this is done.' (Emphasis added.) The bequest is of money ($200 per month) 'from rentals.' On the date the codicil was written the testatrix was receiving $2,000 per month from Wilmont Apartments and ManMur Bowling Center. Subsequently a corporation was formed by the testatrix, one of the daughters, and Mr. Langston, their attorney. The incorporators selected Wilmur Associates, Inc., as the corporate name. It seems apparent the name came from a combination of Wil, the first syllable from the name of the Apartments, and Mur, the last syllable from the name of the Bowling Center. Evidence in the record indicates other rental property (Lincoln Theatre) was conveyed to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kale v. Forrest
...particular words, clauses or sentences must yield to the purpose and intent of the testator as found in the whole will. Moore v. Langston, 251 N.C. 439, 111 S.E.2d 627; Cannon v. Cannon, 225 N.C. 611, 36 S.E.2d The bequest under consideration was made after testator had disposed of three 's......
-
In re Will of Allen
...objective of testamentary construction, for the intent of the testator[,] as so expressed[,] is his will." Moore v. Langston , 251 N.C. 439, 443, 111 S.E.2d 627, 630 (1959) (quoting Wachovia Bank & Tr. v. Schneider , 235 N.C. 446, 451, 70 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1952) ). Thus, the initial question......
-
Miller v. McLean, 165
...to make the monthly payments. What will be left for division cannot be determined until the trust estate terminates. Moore v. Langston, 251 N.C. 439, 111 S.E.2d 627; Shepard v. Bryan, 195 N.C. 822, 143 S.E. 835; Baptist Female University of North Carolina v. Borden, 132 N.C. 476, 44 S.E. 47......
-
Norton-Children's Hospitals, Inc. v. First Kentucky Trust Co.
...Estate, 148 Neb. 592, 28 N.W.2d 427 ( 1947); In re Cline's Estate ( 67 Cal.App.2d 800), 155 P.2d 390 (Calif.1945); Moore v. Langston, 251 N.C. 439, 111 S.E.2d 627 ( 1959). It is therefore the opinion of this Court that the residuary estate disposed of in Item VII of Mrs. Moorman's will must......