Stalcup v. Stalcup

Decision Date17 December 1904
Citation49 S.E. 210,137 N.C. 305
PartiesSTALCUP v. STALCUP et al.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court


1. A conveyance to husband and wife, if nothing else appears, vests in the grantees an estate in entirety, whether the consideration was furnished partly by both, or all by one of them.¶1. See Husband and Wife, vol. 26, Cent. Die. §§ 73-79.

2. Where the grantor of certain land agreed to make the conveyance so that one-half of the land should be conveyed to the purchaser and the other half to his wife, each having furnished one-half of the consideration, the purchaser and his wife took as tenants in common, and not as tenants by the entirety, though the deed by mistake conveyed the land to the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cherokee County; Long, Judge.

Action by J. T. Stalcup against W. R. Stalcup and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

E. B. Norvell and Ben Posey, for appellant.

J. F. Ray, for appellees.

MONTGOMERY, J. The plaintiff, who is the only child and heir at law of his deceased mother, claims a one-half interest in the tract of land described in the complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that in 1893, whilst the plaintiff's mother and P. S. Stalcup were husband and wife, P. S. Stalcup bought, with money of his own and his wife's, the land, and took a bond for title in his own name; that the bond for title ought to have been so executed as that one half of the land should be conveyed to the plaintiff's mother and the other half to P. S. Stalcup, but that, when the bond was drawn and executed, neitherthe plaintiff's mother nor P. S. Stalcup being present, by mistake, oversight, and ignorance on the part of the draftsman, and also on the part of the bargainor and the bargainee, it was drawn and executed so as to make it appear that P. S. Stalcup was to receive a deed as the sole bargainee, when the real intention of the makers of the bond for title, as well as P. S. Stalcup's, was that the bond and deed should show that P. S. Stalcup was to be the owner and bargainee of only one half of the land, and the mother of the plaintiff the other half. It is also alleged that the purchase price was paid for the land, the one-half of which with the money of the mother of the plaintiff, and for one-half of the land; that P. S. Stalcup died, and afterwards the bargainor, through mistake and oversight, executed a deed to the defendants, W. R. Stalcup, Burgess Jacobs, and Nancy Stalcup, the devisees under the will of P. S. Stalcup.

On the trial, Lovingood, the bargainor, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that, when P. S. Stalcup approached him to buy the land, he said he wanted it for himself and his wife; that he wanted the bond to show that he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Moore v. Greenville Banking & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1919
    ... ... Eason ... v. Eason, 159 N.C. 539, 75 S.E. 797; Highsmith v ... Page, 158 N.C. 226, 73 S.E. 998; Stalcup v ... Stalcup, 137 N.C. 305, 49 S.E. 210; Speas v ... Woodhouse, 162 N.C. 66, 77 S.E. 1000; Isley v ... Sellers, 153 N.C. 374, 69 S.E ... ...
  • In re Gonzales
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • June 24, 2013
    ...undivided half to the wife." Eason v. Eason, 159 N.C. 539, 540-41, 75 S.E.797, 798 (1912) (emphasis added); Stalcup v. Stalcup, 137 N.C. 305, 307-08, 49 S.E. 210, 211 (1904) (recognizing that "when lands are granted to husband and wife, and it appears from words of the grant that the intent......
  • General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Carolina & N.W. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1904
  • Isley v. Sellars
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1910
    ...Am. St. Rep. 762; Hopkins on Real Property, 337; 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 846, 847. This court has adopted this view. Stalcup v. Stalcup, 137 N.C. 305, 49 S.E. 210, in which we said: "It has been held (in many that, in consequence of the theoretic unity of husband and wife, lands granted......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT