Buckner v. Hawkins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Buckner v. Hawkins

52 S.E.2d 16, 230 N.C. 99, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 571

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 9, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 S.E.2d 16 (Buckner v. Hawkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buckner v. Hawkins, 52 S.E.2d 16, 230 N.C. 99, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 571 (N.C. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

WnsrBORNE, J.

The judgment below is accordant with well settled principles of law in this State.

The clause “I give, devise and bequeath to Claud L. Buckner . . . my house and lot at 121 Pearson Avenue . . .” standing alone, constitutes a devise in fee simple. Gr.S. 31-38, formerly C.S. 4162. See also Elder v. Johnston, 227 N.C. 592, 42 S.E. 2d 904; Early v. Tayloe, 219 N.C. 363, *101 13 S.E. 2d 609; Heefner v. Thornton, 216 N.C. 702, 6 S.E. 2d 506; Williams v. McPherson, 216 N.C. 565, 5 S.E. 2d 830, and cases cited.

Moreover, the clauses, “This property not to be mortgaged, sold or disposed of during the life of said Claud L. Buckner” and “All of these lands are devised and bequeathed to the said Claud L. Buckner with the restriction that the same shall not be sold, mortgaged or disposed- of during his natural life” are such restraints upon alienation as are contrary to public policy and void. And restraints upon alienation, though for a limited time, annexed to a grant or devise in fee, are void. Pritchard v. Bailey, 113 N.C. 521, 18 S.E. 668; Latimer v. Waddell, 119 N.C. 370, 26 S.E. 122; Wool v. Fleetwood, 136 N.C. 460, 48 S.E. 785, 67 L.R.A. 444; Christmas v. Winston, 152 N.C. 48, 67 S.E. 58, 27 L.N.S. 1084; Lee v. Oates, 171 N.C. 717, 88 S.E. 889; Combs v. Paul, 191 N.C. 789, 133 S.E. 93; Williams v. Sealy, 201 N.C. 372, 160 S.E. 452; Douglass v. Stevens, 214 N.C. 688, 200 S.E. 366; Williams v. McPherson, supra, and cases cited.

Therefore, the devise, stripped of these void clauses, vests in Claud L. Buckner an estate in fee.

The cases Shuford v. Brady, 169 N.C. 224, 85 S.E. 303; Roberts v. Saunders, 192 N.C. 191, 134 S.E. 451; Williams v. Rand, 223 N.C. 734, 28 S.E. 2d 247, relied upon by appellees, are distinguishable from case in hand. Likewise the case of Ex Parte Watts, 130 N.C. 237, 41 S.E. 289, also cited by appellee, is distinguishable. See Brooks v. Griffin, 177 N.C. 7, 97 S.E. 730.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WnsrBORNE, J.

The judgment below is accordant with well settled principles of law in this State.

The clause “I give, devise and bequeath to Claud L. Buckner . . . my house and lot at 121 Pearson Avenue . . .” standing alone, constitutes a devise in fee simple. Gr.S. 31-38, formerly C.S. 4162. See also Elder v. Johnston, 227 N.C. 592, 42 S.E. 2d 904; Early v. Tayloe, 219 N.C. 363, *101 13 S.E. 2d 609; Heefner v. Thornton, 216 N.C. 702, 6 S.E. 2d 506; Williams v. McPherson, 216 N.C. 565, 5 S.E. 2d 830, and cases cited.

Moreover, the clauses, “This property not to be mortgaged, sold or disposed of during the life of said Claud L. Buckner” and “All of these lands are devised and bequeathed to the said Claud L. Buckner with the restriction that the same shall not be sold, mortgaged or disposed- of during his natural life” are such restraints upon alienation as are contrary to public policy and void. And restraints upon alienation, though for a limited time, annexed to a grant or devise in fee, are void. Pritchard v. Bailey, 113 N.C. 521, 18 S.E. 668; Latimer v. Waddell, 119 N.C. 370, 26 S.E. 122; Wool v. Fleetwood, 136 N.C. 460, 48 S.E. 785, 67 L.R.A. 444; Christmas v. Winston, 152 N.C. 48, 67 S.E. 58, 27 L.N.S. 1084; Lee v. Oates, 171 N.C. 717, 88 S.E. 889; Combs v. Paul, 191 N.C. 789, 133 S.E. 93; Williams v. Sealy, 201 N.C. 372, 160 S.E. 452; Douglass v. Stevens, 214 N.C. 688, 200 S.E. 366; Williams v. McPherson, supra, and cases cited.

Therefore, the devise, stripped of these void clauses, vests in Claud L. Buckner an estate in fee.

The cases Shuford v. Brady, 169 N.C. 224, 85 S.E. 303; Roberts v. Saunders, 192 N.C. 191, 134 S.E. 451; Williams v. Rand, 223 N.C. 734, 28 S.E. 2d 247, relied upon by appellees, are distinguishable from case in hand. Likewise the case of Ex Parte Watts, 130 N.C. 237, 41 S.E. 289, also cited by appellee, is distinguishable. See Brooks v. Griffin, 177 N.C. 7, 97 S.E. 730.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 S.E.2d 16, 230 N.C. 99, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckner-v-hawkins-nc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack