Williams v. Sasser

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROGDEN, J.
• Citation: Williams v. Sasser, 191 N.C. 453, 132 S.E. 278 (N.C. 1926)
• Decision Date: 24 March 1926
• Docket Number: 228.
• Parties: WILLIAMS et al. v. SASSER et al.

132 S.E. 278

191 N.C. 453

WILLIAMS et al. v. SASSER et al.

No. 228.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 24, 1926

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

Civil Action by Daniel H. Williams and others against Rosa A Sasser and others for partition. From an adverse judgment Bessie L. Sasser appeals. Reversed.

Deed to grantor's daughter for life, with remainder to heirs of her body, in trust until they become 21 years of age conveyed vested interest to grantee's daughter, and made devise by her valid.

This was a civil action for partition, instituted before the clerk of the superior court. One of the plaintiffs, Bessie L Sasser, claimed a one-eighth undivided interest in the land as devisee of Mollie L. Williams, and also an interest in said land as heir at law of Indiana S. Sasser. The defendants admitted that Bessie L. Sasser was entitled to an interest in the property as heir at law of Indiana S. Sasser, but denied that she was entitled to any interest in said land under the will of Mollie L. Williams.

In March, 1858, Daniel Harper executed and delivered to Martha L. Williams a deed for the land in controversy, as follows, to wit:

"North Carolina, Duplin County. Know all men by these presents, that I, Daniel Harper, of the state of North Carolina, and county of Duplin, do for the natural love and affection that I have for my daughter, Martha L. Williams, wife of Barachas W. Williams, do give unto her my plantation that I now live on, lying on the east side of the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, and on the north side of Bear Swamp, adjoining the lands of D. B. Newton, David Wright, and others, supposed to be 160 acres, which by reference to deed will more fully show together with my dwelling house and outhouses on the premises during her natural life and at her death to be equally divided between the lawful begotten heirs of her body.

I further give unto my beloved daughter the following negroes, Old Oty, aged about thirty-eight years, Jackson, aged about 16 years, Squire John about 13 years, Cassey about 9. Winnie about 7, Sally about 4, and young Oty about 9 months old and their increase during her natural life but I reserve my lifetime in the land and negroes and after her death to be divided and disposed of as the above land and not to be liable nor subject to any debts heretofore made by her husband nor any that he may contract hereafter nor any future husband not to be disposed of by him in any whatever, only to be used by her husband for the special benefit of herself, and children during her natural life and at her death to go in the hands of Daniel B. Newton as special trustee for the lawful begotten heirs of her body and for him as they become 21 years old to divide and hand over to them as the law directs in all such cases all the above named property I do warrant and defend the title to my daughter against the lawful claims of any and all persons whatsoever. But by the mutual consent of my daughter I have the use of the above property or any portion of it that I may want during my life.

In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and seal this the 11th day of March, 1858.

Daniel his x mark Harper. [Seal.]

Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of David Wright, D. Bowden.

Before signed, I do reserve one quarter of an acre including my grave yard where my wife Alisa Harper and my grandchild is buried free from all encumbrances forever.

Daniel his x mark Harper. [Seal.]

Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of David Wright, D. Bowden.

The due execution of the foregoing deed is proved in open court by the oath of D. Bowden, subscribing witness, and ordered to be registered. Test: John J. Whitehead, Clerk. Witnessed and ordered to be registered. Thos. I. Koonce, Register. Registered Book 22, page 368."

After the pleadings were filed the question came before Judge Barnhill for determination, and he rendered judgment, the pertinent portion of which is as follows:

"It is adjudged that said will of Mollie L. Williams was ineffectual to convey any interest in said land, and that the petitioner, Bessie L. Sasser, together with the other heirs at law of Indiana S. Sasser are seized of a one-seventh undivided interest in said land; i. e., Bessie L. Sasser is seized of a one twenty-first interest. This cause is remanded to the clerk to the end that he may proceed herein in accordance with this judgment."

The defendants contend that the judgment as rendered is correct, for the reason that Mollie Williams predeceased her mother, Martha L. Williams, and hence had no interest in said land to devise to her niece. The plaintiff Bessie L. Sasser contends that the judgment should be reversed, for the reason that the said will of Mollie L. Williams conveyed to her a one-eighth undivided interest.

R. D. Johnson, of Warsaw, for appellant Bessie L. Sasser.

Gavin & Boney, of Kenansville, for appellees.

Downing & Downing, of Fayetteville, for Rosa A. Sasser.

BROGDEN J.

It is conceded in the briefs of the parties that the rule in Shelley's Case is not involved, for the reason that the superadded words, "equally divided between the lawful begotten heirs of her body," bar its application. Ward v. Jones, 40 N.C. 400; Mills v. Thorne, 95 N.C. 362; Jones v. Whichard, 79 S.E. 503, 163 N.C. 244; Haar v. Schloss, 85 S.E. 380, 169 N.C. 228; Blackledge v. Simmons, 105 S.E. 202, 180 N.C. 535.

Therefore Martha L. Williams, the grantee in the deed, took thereunder a life estate only, with remainder to be "equally divided between the lawful begotten heirs of her body"; it being further provided that "at her death to go into the hands of Daniel B. Newton as special trustee for the lawful begotten heirs of her body, and for him, as they become 21 years old, to divide and hand over to them as the law directs in all such cases, all the above named property." It is manifest that the words, "lawful begotten heirs of her body," are not employed to designate an entire class to take in succession from generation to generation, or used in a technical sense, but rather as a mere descriptio personarum. Hence, the words "lawful begotten heirs of her body" should be construed as children. This interpretation is further reinforced and established by the language of the deed itself, and particularly the following clause thereof, "only to be used by her husband for the special benefit of herself and children during her natural life, etc." Puckett v. Morgan, 74 S.E. 15, 158 N.C. 344; Bizzell v. Loan Association, 90 S.E. 142, 172 N.C. 159; Albright v. Albright, 90 S.E. 303, 172 N.C. 351; Kornegay v. Cunningham, 93 S.E. 754, 174 N.C. 209; Pugh v. Allen, 102 S.E. 394, 179 N.C. 307; Blackledge v. Simmons, 105 S.E. 202, 180 N.C. 535.

Under this construction, Martha L. Williams, the grantee in the deed, would take a life estate, with remainder to her children, to be...