Williams v. Williams

• Decision Date: 06 March 1918
• Docket Number: 174.
• Citation: 95 S.E. 157,175 N.C. 160
• Parties: WILLIAMS ET AL. v. WILLIAMS ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

95 S.E. 157

175 N.C. 160

WILLIAMS ET AL. v. WILLIAMS ET AL.

No. 174.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 6, 1918

Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; Allen, Judge.

Action by Ernest Williams and others against Puss Williams and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Deed to grantor's son for life, then to his wife for life, and then to his children and their heirs, held to give no interest to his second wife, subsequently married, and her children.

On the 24th day of September, 1877, Thomas Williams and wife executed and delivered to their son, James W. Williams, a certain deed, marked "Exhibit A" in the case agreed, for the lands described therein. The granting clause in said deed is as follows:

"Do give, grant, convey and confirm unto James W. Williams, for the term of his natural life, and after his death in remainder to his wife, if she survives him, for her natural life, then to the children of the said James W. Williams lawfully begotten in marriage, absolutely, and to their heirs."

The habendum is as follows:

"To have and to hold the same in manner aforesaid, to him and his wife, their lives, and to their children and their heirs in fee simple We, the said Thos. Williams and wife reserving for ourselves the use of the turpentine and tar on the said land, and we do further, for ourselves and our heirs, hereby warrant and defend the title hereby conveyed against the lawful claims of any and all persons whatsoever."

Upon the execution of the deed the said James W. Williams and wife went into possession of the land. At the time of the execution of the deed, James W. Williams was living with his wife, and at said time they had the following children Ernest Williams, L. F. Williams, Ella Williams, Jesse Williams, Maggie Williams, and Will Williams. On the 21st day of March, 1885, the wife of the said James W. Williams died, leaving surviving her James W. Williams, her husband, and the aforesaid children. After the death of the wife of James W. Williams, the mother of the plaintiffs, and while he, James W. Williams, was a widower, Thomas Williams and wife, on the 17th day of June, 1887, executed to the said James W. Williams the deed which is attached to the case and marked "Exhibit B," the recitals of which are as follows:

"Whereas, Thomas Williams and wife, Mimy Williams, executed to James W. Williams, their son, for a valuable consideration, a deed for one-third interest in and to a tract of land situated in Pitt county, containing two hundred and fifty acres, more or less, said deed was dated on the 24th day of September, 1877, and duly recorded in the register's office of Pitt county, and, whereas, by error of the draftsman, it should have been three hundred acres of land, one-third of which to the said James Williams, and the said Thomas and wife Mimy, now desiring to correct said deed so far as they are able, so as to convey and include a one-third undivided interest in the said three hundred acres of land as set forth in the deed of September 24, 1877. Now, therefore, this deed, made this 17th day of June, 1887, by Thomas Williams and wife, Mimy, to James W. Williams, all of the county and state aforesaid. Witnesseth, that for and in consideration of the above-recited premises and the further consideration of the sum of one dollar to us in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hath bargained, sold and conveyed and by these presents doth bargain, sell and convey unto James W. Williams for the term of his natural life and after his death in remainder to his wife, if she survives him, for her natural life, then to the children of the said James W. Williams, lawfully begotten in marriage, absolutely and to their heirs in fee simple forever, an undivided one-third interest, part and estate in and to a tract of land situated in Pitt county and said state, and bounded as follows [here follows the description]. It being intended by this deed to convey with the above conditions and limitations, subject to the life estate in the turpentine and tar on the lands which is hereby specially reserved unto the said Thomas and Mimy Williams, an undivided one-third interest in the above-described lands and the part assigned for the purposes of this deed, included in the following boundaries: Beginning at John S. Williams' northeast corner line and running north to wit [here follows the description]. To have and to hold the same in manner aforesaid to him and his wife their lives, and to their children and their heirs in fee simple after the life estate above carried out to the said Thomas and Mimy Williams."

After the execution of both of the deeds, James W. Williams remarried, to wit, on October 25, 1888, his second wife, being the defendant Puss Williams. There was born of the second marriage the following children: C. B. Williams, Marshall Williams, Thad Williams, and Daisy Williams, defendants in this action. On the 27th day of May, 1917, James W. Williams died, leaving surviving him the following children by his first marriage: Ernest Williams, L. F. Williams, Ella Williams Moore, Maggie Williams Sutton, and Will Williams, together with five grandchildren, the children of Jesse Williams, a child of the first marriage, who died since the death of his mother. And the following children by his second marriage, to wit: C. B. Williams, Marshall Williams, Thad Williams, and Daisy Williams, and also his widow, the said Puss Williams, the second wife.

Maggie Sutton and Will Williams, two of the children by the first marriage, by good and sufficient deeds have conveyed whatever interest they have in and to the lands described, to the plaintiff Ernest Williams. Thad Williams, one of the children of the second marriage, by good and sufficient deed, has conveyed to Ernest Williams any interest that he might have in and to said land.

The plaintiffs, who are the children of the first marriage, upon the facts agreed, the susbtance of which is above set out, contended that upon the death of the said James W. Williams they became the owners in fee and entitled to the immediate possession of said land, free of the claims of the second wife and of the second children. The defendants, the second children, contended that they are entitled to an equal share in said lands with the plaintiffs. The defendant Puss Williams, the widow by the second marriage, contending that she, under and by virtue of the deeds aforesaid, is the owner of the life estate in and to said lands, and that the children of the first and second marriages share equally, subject to said life estate.

The court, upon the foregoing facts and contentions, held that, under and by virtue of the deeds from Thomas Williams and wife to James W. Williams, set out in the case agreed as Exhibits A and B, the defendant Puss Williams, wife by the second marriage, and widow of James W. Williams, was the owner of a life estate in and to said land, and that the children by the first and second marriages own the remainder in fee as tenants in common, and rendered judgment accordingly, from which judgment the plaintiffs, children by the first marriage, appealed, assigning as error that the court adjudged that they were not the sole owners in fee of the land in controversy.

Albion Dunn and Harry Skinner, both of Greenville, for appellants.

D. M. Clark and F. M. Wooten, both of Greenville, for appellees.

WALKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is not at all difficult to construe the first deed, if we are permitted to look at the entire instrument and to consider one part of it with another, so that the intention of its maker may be determined by all that he has said and not only by a part thereof, and without special regard to the formal arrangement. This court has repeatedly held that this should be done, in order to extract from the language the true meaning of him who used it. Campbell v. McArthur, 9 N. C. 38, 11 Am. Dec. 738; Kea v. Robeson, 40 N.C. 373; Rowland v. Rowland, 93 N.C. 214; Gudger v. White, 141 N.C. 507, 54 S.E. 386; Triplett v. Williams, 149 N.C. 394, 63 S.E. 79, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514; Beacom v. Amos, 161 N.C. 357, 77 S.E. 407; Brown v. Brown, 168 N.C. 4, 84 S.E. 25; Gold Mining Co. v. Lumber Co., 170 N.C. 273, 87 S.E. 40. We said in Brown v. Brown, supra:

"We have well-nigh discarded the technical rule of the common law by which a deed was construed, and under which undue prominence and effect

...