Burton v. Hyder

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Burton v. Hyder

138 S.E.2d 485, 262 N.C. 733, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 724

DecidedNovember 4, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 138 S.E.2d 485 (Burton v. Hyder) 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

Burton v. Hyder, 138 S.E.2d 485, 262 N.C. 733, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 724 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Item 19 of her will, Mrs. Palmer directed her executors to sell all the property she had not specifically bequeathed or [735]*735devised in items 1 through 18. The cash thus derived is the residuary estate, which she described in items 20 and 21 as “my property not otherwise passing under this will.” Mrs. Palmer disposed of this property by the use of parallel language in two successive residuary clauses, items 20 and 21. Thus, it seems clear to us that she did not intend the bequest in Item 22 to reduce the bequest in Item 21. The two items are totally unrelated. Item 22 would have operated only if Mrs. Hyder had predeceased the testatrix or if any of the legacies in items 1 through 18 had lapsed. We hold that it was the intention of testatrix to leave one-half of her residuary estate to her sister, Mrs. Iiyder, if she survived her, and the other half to her niece, Mrs. Kotkin.

His Honor correctly interpreted the will and his judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

In Item 19 of her will, Mrs. Palmer directed her executors to sell all the property she had not specifically bequeathed or [735]*735devised in items 1 through 18. The cash thus derived is the residuary estate, which she described in items 20 and 21 as “my property not otherwise passing under this will.” Mrs. Palmer disposed of this property by the use of parallel language in two successive residuary clauses, items 20 and 21. Thus, it seems clear to us that she did not intend the bequest in Item 22 to reduce the bequest in Item 21. The two items are totally unrelated. Item 22 would have operated only if Mrs. Hyder had predeceased the testatrix or if any of the legacies in items 1 through 18 had lapsed. We hold that it was the intention of testatrix to leave one-half of her residuary estate to her sister, Mrs. Iiyder, if she survived her, and the other half to her niece, Mrs. Kotkin.

His Honor correctly interpreted the will and his judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 485, 262 N.C. 733, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-hyder-nc-1964.