Roberson v. Moore

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOKE
• Citation: Roberson v. Moore, 84 S.E. 351, 168 N.C. 388 (N.C. 1915)
• Decision Date: 24 February 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 67.)
• Parties: ROBERSON et al. v. MOORE.

84 S.E. 351

168 N.C. 388

ROBERSON et al.

v.MOORE.

(No. 67.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 24, 1915.

Appeal from Superior Court, Martin County; Ferguson, Judge.

Submission of controversy without action by W. A. Roberson and another, as plaintiffs, and C. Moore, as defendant; the question being whether the title tendered by plaintiffs, under a contract of sale of land, was good. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant excepted and appeals. Affirmed.

Clayton Moore, of Williamston, for appellant.

H. W. Stubbs and A. R. Dunning, both of Williamston, for appellees.

HOKE, J. The immediate grantor of plaintiffs was James G. Taylor, devisee of the tract of land in question, under the will of his father, Jesse Erwin Taylor, and, on the facts agreed, the title offered was properly made to depend upon the construction of the will of said Jesse, in terms as follows:

"Item 5. I loan to James G. Taylor during the term of his natural life the following described tract of land, beginning at a gum in Bee branch, Moye P. Taylor's corner, and running along said Taylor's line 4 25/100 chains; thence S. 55 W. to the line of the lands devised to my daughter, Mollie Smith, in Item 4; thence along said line and along Julian H. Purvis' line and Mrs. Ruth Taylor's line and N. P. Taylor's line to a dead elm in Bee branch; thence up said branch to the first station; containing 190 acres, more or less; and at the death of said James G. Taylor I give and devise the said land to his heirs at law in fee simple forever."

The case states that the James G. Taylor is now living and has two children, and de-fendant contends that, under said clause, the devisee took only a life estate.

It is established by repeated decisions of the court that the rule in Shelley's Case is still recognized in this jurisdiction, and, where the same obtains, it does so as a rule of property without regard to the intent of the grantor or devisor. Jones v. Whichard, 163 N. C. page 243, 79 S. E. 504; Price v. Griffin, 150 N. C. page 523, 64 S. E. 372, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 935; Edgerton v. Ay cock, 123 N. C. page 134, 31 S. E. 382; Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N. C. page 170, 27 S. E. 111; Staines v. Hill, 112 N. C. page 1, 16 S. E. 1011, 22 L. R. A. 598.

In Jones v. Whichard, a very accurate statement of the rule is given with approval from Preston on Estates, as follows:

"When a person takes an estate of freehold, legally or equitably, under a deed, will, or other writing, and in the same instrument there is a...