Crawford v. . Wearn

20 S.E. 724, 115 N.C. 540
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1894·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

After a careful examination of this ease, we have arrived at the conclusion that the rule in Shelley’s case does not apply, and that L. W. Crawford takes but a life estate in the property in question. Such seems the intention of the testator from the context of the will, and this intention, it is well settled, must prevail over technical language, when *542 such language is qualified by superadded words. We are also of the opinion that the power to “ invest or use all of the property, in view of other expressions in the will, authorizes a sale of the same by the life tenant, and on this ground, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

Crawford v. . Wearn, 20 S.E. 724, 115 N.C. 540 (N.C. 1894).

20 S.E. 724 (Crawford v. . Wearn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williamson v. . Cox
10 S.E.2d 662 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Ripley v. . Armstrong
74 S.E. 961 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Lord v. Comstock
88 N.E. 1012 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1909)
Powell v. . Woodcock
62 S.E. 1071 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Foil v. Newsome.
50 S.E. 597 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Hooker v. . Montague
31 S.E. 705 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)