Stimpson's Will, In re, 465
| Decision Date | 30 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 465,465 |
| Citation | 248 N.C. 262,103 S.E.2d 352 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of the WILL of Joseph E. STIMPSON, Deceased. |
Allen Langston, Raleigh, for respondentappellant.
G. Earl Weaver and W. Gale Parker, Raleigh, in pro. per., for appellee-trustees.
Appellant does not assign as error the failure of the court to make findings of fact with respect to her allegations which might form the basis for reformation or avoidance of the provisions of the family settlement. Her assignments of error are all predicated on the thesis that the agreement and consent judgment are valid but that the court has misinterpreted and misconstrued that agreement. A determination of appellant's rights rests upon the assignments of error which she has preserved.
The judgment dismissing caveators' appeal and establishing the rights of the parties was entered by consent. It thereby became a contract between the parties. Houghton v. Harris, 243 N.C. 92, 89 S.E.2d 860; Spruill v. Nixon, 238 N.C. 523, 78 S.E.2d 323; Lee v. Rhodes, 227 N.C. 240, 41 S.E.2d 747.
Courts do not presume to make contracts for parties. They only interpret when controversy arises as to the meaning of the language chosen by the parties to express their agreement. The rules which courts have evolved for the interpretation of contracts are applicable to consent judgments. Rand v. Wilson County, 243 N.C. 43, 89 S.E.2d 779; Rand v. City of Wilson, 243 N.C. 46, 89 S.E.2d 781; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 213 N.C. 36, 195 S.E.5.
A contract results when there is a meeting of the minds for the settlement or adjustment of asserted or disputed rights and obligations. The words chosen by the draftsman selected to reduce the agreement to writing are merely vehicles to make visible the mutual intention of the parties. Interpretation is, therefore, the ascertainment of that intent. To do so, the entire agreement must be examined with an understanding of the result to be accomplished and the situation of the parties at the moment the contract is made. De Bruhl v. State Highway Com., 245 N.C. 139, 95 S.E.2d 553; Bowles v. Bowles, 237 N.C. 462, 75 S.E.2d 413; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Norfolk Southern R., 236 N.C. 247, 72 S.E.2d 604; Hill v. Carolina Freight Carriers, 235 N.C. 705, 71 S.E.2d 133; McCorkle v. Beatty, 226 N.C. 338, 38 S.E.2d 102; McAden v. Craig, 222 N.C. 497, 24 S.E.2d 1; Town of Lumberton v. Hood, 204 N.C. 171, 167 S.E. 641.
Section 6 of the agreement quoted in the findings of Judge Bone is the portion of the contract expressly binding on the widow. It provides: 'That Minnie Murray Stimpson, widow of the late Joseph E. Stimpson, has signified to the Court her willingness to accept her dower interest in the estate of Joseph E. Stimpson as contemplated by the proposed family agreement and settlement, and does hereby accept said settlement; relinquishing all further claim in and to the estate of said Joseph E. Stimpson.'
The last clause of the quoted section is asserted to bar her right in the distribution of the personal estate. It may be conceded that this phrase, standing alone, is susceptible of the construction which appellees put on it; but when the entire contract is read with an appreciation of the rights and relationship of the respective parties to the action, such an interpretation would, in our opinion, do violence to the real intent of the parties.
We point to some of the factors which lead us to that conclusion. first, we must bear in mind that the prime object of the contract was to settle a lawsuit which could not in any way impair the rights of the widow. True, she was, by the service of the citation, a party, but a mere nominal party. Her answer had disclaimed any interest in the litigation. Her rights accrued when she dissented from the will, which was prior to the filing of the caveat. Her rights fixed by statute could only be taken from her by her act. Judge Bone expressly finds that she has not withdrawn her dissent or waived her rights, unless she did so by her signature to the agreement.
As a basis for Judge Carr's findings to bind the parties by the consent judgment, the opening paragraph reads: 'That all legatees, devisees and heirs at law of the late Joseph E. Stimpson, together with the Executrix and Trustee named in the will of said Joseph E. Stimpson, are before the Court and are parties to this proceeding, either as propounders or caveators of the will of said Joseph E. Stimpson.' Appellant, the dissenting widow, did not fit either of these categories. The omission of her name or status was natural and apparently deliberate, because her consent was not material to a settlement of the pending litigation. As to that she was a mere observer.
The agreement recites that the real estate on which the dwelling was situate represented the greater portion of the total value of the estate, the personalty making 'a small fraction of the total value of the estate'; that the widow had dissented and was not bound by the will; that the will as probated made two bequests of $10, devised the dwelling house to Mrs. Stimpson during widowhood and the residue of the estate to a trustee for the benefit of testator's three minor children, and 'that irrespective of the terms of said will relating to said testamentary trust for the benefit of said minor children, when the dower rights of the said widow are allotted and assigned to her, which rights must include the dwelling house and other outbuildings situated on the aforementioned land, the residue of said land and other items comprising the estate of said testator will be greatly diminished in value, and made impractical for farming purposes or other business operations for the purpose of providing income as contemplated by the terms of testator's will, thereby compelling the Trustee, as appointed by said will, to invade and sell or otherwise dispose of such residue, after allotment and assignment of dower, at a depressed value in order to effectuate the purpose of said trust...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lancaster v. Potomac Edison Co. of West Virginia
...... are read as a whole, it is apparent that they could not have misled the jury, the verdict will not be disturbed, though one may be susceptible of a doubtful construction while standing alone.' ......
-
Yount v. Lowe
...of the result to be accomplished and the situation of the parties at the moment the contract is made.' In re Will of Stimpson, 248 N.C. 262, 103 S.E.2d 352 (1958). The Contract between Elmer Lowe and Paul Rhodes provided, Inter alia, that Elmer Lowe 'and his successors in title forever are ......
-
Quinn v. Quinn, COA11–964.
...at the moment the contract is made.’ “ Yount v. Lowe, 288 N.C. 90, 96, 215 S.E.2d 563, 567 (1975) (quoting In re Will of Stimpson, 248 N.C. 262, 265, 103 S.E.2d 352, 355 (1958)); 3 Suzanne Reynolds, Lee's North Carolina Family Law § 14.32e, at 529–30 (rev. 5th ed.2002). We must “ ‘[presume ......
-
Coastal Production Credit Ass'n v. Goodson Farms, Inc.
...waive appeal, as intended by the parties at the time of signing, extended only to the consent judgment itself. See In re Will of Stimpson, 248 N.C. 262, 103 S.E.2d 352 (1958) (contract principles apply). Waiver of right to appeal must be voluntary and intentional. Redevelopment Comm. v. Wea......