Edgerton v. . Aycock

31 S.E. 382, 123 N.C. 134, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 33
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 1, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 31 S.E. 382 (Edgerton v. . Aycock) 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
Edgerton v. . Aycock, 31 S.E. 382, 123 N.C. 134, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 33 (N.C. 1898).

Opinion

Eaircloth, C. J.:

The controlling words of the deed from Nathan Edgerton to E. P.. Edgerton are these: “Do lend to the said E. P. Edgerton during his natural life” a certain tract of land and in the' habendum: ‘ ‘To have and to hold the same with the appurtenances thereunto belonging, to the said E. P. Edgerton, his natural life, and at the death of the said E. P. Edger-ton, we .... have given, granted, aliened, released and confirmed, and by these presents do give, grant, alien, release and confirm unto the lawful heirs of the said E. P. Edgerton and their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, the above described premises,” etc., and the only question presented is whether this deed, at common law, under the Rule in Shelly’s Case, conveys a fee simple title to, the grantee, the vendor of the defendant.

In England, from an early date, it was held that these and similar expressions, in wills and deeds, passed an estate in fee to the first taker (E. P. Edgerton here) as a *136 rule of law, without regard to the intent of the grantor or devisor.

In North Carolina the same rule was adopted by this Court, at its earliest existence, and has been uniformly so held in a list of decided cases, too numerous to refer to now, including the late case of Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N. C., 170. The rule has been so long and so well settled, that it admits of no discussion at this day.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Hammer v. Brantley
92 S.E.2d 424 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Allen v. . Hewitt
193 S.E. 275 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Waller v. . Brown
149 S.E. 687 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
Hartman v. . Flynn
127 S.E. 517 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Byrd v. . Byrd
96 S.E. 729 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
Smith v. . Smith
91 S.E. 721 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Robeson v. . Moore
84 S.E. 351 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Sessoms v. . Sessoms
56 S.E. 687 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Pitchford v. . Limer
51 S.E. 789 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Marsh v. Griffin.
48 S.E. 735 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 S.E. 382, 123 N.C. 134, 1898 N.C. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgerton-v-aycock-nc-1898.