Williams v. Best

• Decision Date: 14 March 1928
• Docket Number: 220.
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. BEST et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

142 S.E. 2

195 N.C. 324

WILLIAMS v. BEST et al.

No. 220.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 14, 1928

Appeal from Superior Court, Duplin County; Harris, Judge.

Suit by J. E. Williams, executor of A. F. Williams, Sr., deceased against Eliza W. Best, Mary W. Millard, and others for the construction of a will. From the judgment below, defendant Mary W. Millard appeals. Affirmed.

Devise to wife of all personal property, "together with" use of, and rents from, land without bond during life, held to give wife only life estate in personal property.

A. F Williams, Sr., late of Duplin county, died during the month of May, 1926, leaving Rosalind J. Williams, his widow, and the following named children as his only heirs at law, to wit: Mary W. Millard, Eliza W. Best, Rosalind W. Bryan Albert F. Williams, Jr., Estelle W. Sparks, and Lucile W Elliott.

On April 19, 1922, he made a will appointing the plaintiff his executor, and on May 12, 1926, the will was duly admitted to probate in common form. It contains the following provisions:

"Revoking all former wills by me made, I give all my personal property of every kind to my beloved wife, Rosalind J. Williams, together with the use of, and the rents from all of the real estate that I may be possessed of at the time of my death without bond, during her life. After the death of my beloved wife, it is my wish and desire that all of my real estate, except the Witherington lands, be sold by my executor, after due advertisement, and the proceeds arising from such sale and all other funds belonging to my estate be equally divided between my children, Eliza W. Best, Rosalind W. Bryan, Albert F. Williams, Estelle W. Sparks and Lucile W. Elliott, in equal shares, and to my daughter, Mary, I give the sum of five dollars, and no more."

The plaintiff brought suit to obtain the advice of the court relative to the construction and legal effect of this clause, the primary question being whether the testator bequeathed to his wife his personal property absolutely or only for her life. The trial court, being of opinion that she took only a life estate in the personal property, gave judgment accordingly, from which upon exceptions duly entered the defendant Mary W. Millard appealed.

Gavin & Boney and Stevens & Beasley, all of Kenansville, for appellant.

Connor & Hill, of Wilson, for other devisees.

ADAMS J.

If a devise is set forth in clear and unequivocal language, there is no occasion for judicial interpretation; but if doubt exists, resort may be had to certain arbitrary canons of construction which are designed to give a definite meaning to particular forms of expression. The fundamental object of construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the testator as declared in his will; and in seeking to discover his intention we must inspect all the provisions in the light of the presumption that the testator used words in their ordinary sense, and that every part of the will indicates an intelligent purpose. If possible, apparent repugnancies must be reconciled, for as suggested in Dalton v. Scales, 37 N.C. 521, it is not to be admitted, unless the conclusion is irresistible, that the testator had two inconsistent intents. And no less pertinent is the principle that words, phrases, or clauses used in one part of a will may be explained, controlled, or limited in their application by the language employed by the testator in another part of the same instrument. Campbell v. Cronly, 150 N.C. 469, 64 S.E. 213; Satterwaite v. Wilkinson, 173 N.C. 38, 91 S.E. 599; McIver v. McKinney, 184 N.C. 393, 114 S.E. 399; Gordon v. Ehringhaus, 190 N.C. 147, 129 S.E. 187; Scales v. Barringer, 192 N.C. 95, 133 S.E. 410.

Let us apply these familiar principles in our endeavor to ascertain the testator's intention with respect to his personal property-specifically whether he bequeathed it to his wife without limitation, or only for her life-for upon a proper determination of this question the rights of the parties depend. The disposition of his personal property and of the rents from and the use of his real estate...