Hammer v. Brantley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Hammer v. Brantley

92 S.E.2d 424, 244 N.C. 71, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 642

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 2, 1956

Docket528

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 92 S.E.2d 424 (Hammer v. Brantley) 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

Hammer v. Brantley, 92 S.E.2d 424, 244 N.C. 71, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 642 (N.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnhill, C. J.

This appeal is not complicated by the indefiniteness of the devise to Gennie Bunting. The bounds of her devise have been settled by the parties by an agreement of partition in which the 100 acres have been set apart to her by metes and bounds.

“It is established by repeated decisions of this Court that the rule in Shelley’s case is still recognized in this jurisdiction, and where the same obtains it does so as a rule of property without regard to the intent of the grantor or devisor. Jones v. Whichard, 163 N.C. 241; Price v. Griffin, 150 N.C. 523; Edgerton v. Aycock, 123 N.C. 134; Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N.C. 170; Starnes v. Hill, 112 N.C. 1; Bank v. Dortch, 186 N.C. 510; Wallace v. Wallace, 181 N.C. 158; Hampton v. Griggs, 184 N.C. 13.” Allen v. Hewitt, 212 N.C. 367, 193 S.E. 275.

When a devise is to a named person for life with remainder after his death to “his heirs” or “his bodily heirs” or the “heirs of his body,” nothing else appearing, the devisee becomes seized of a fee simple estate upon the death of the testator subject to any prior life estate created by the will. It is so provided by statute, G.S. 31-38 and G.S. 41-1, and has been so held by numerous opinions of this Court. The line of cases so *73 holding is represented by Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N.C. 170; Bank v. Dortch, 186 N.C. 510; Jackson v. Powell, 225 N.C. 599, 35 S.E. 2d 892; and Whitson v. Barnett, 237 N.C. 483, 75 S.E. 2d 391. See also Priddy & Co. v. Sanderford, 221 N.C. 422, 20 S.E. 2d 341. We could say nothing on this subject which has not already been said which would be helpful to Bench or Bar. Hence an extended discussion of the subject is wholly unnecessary.

Daniel v. Bass, 193 N.C. 294, relied on by defendants, is distinguishable. Furthermore, it does not sustain the position of the defendants.

The judgment entered by the court below is

Affirmed.

Johnson, J., not sitting.

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

Barnhill, C. J.

This appeal is not complicated by the indefiniteness of the devise to Gennie Bunting. The bounds of her devise have been settled by the parties by an agreement of partition in which the 100 acres have been set apart to her by metes and bounds.

“It is established by repeated decisions of this Court that the rule in Shelley’s case is still recognized in this jurisdiction, and where the same obtains it does so as a rule of property without regard to the intent of the grantor or devisor. Jones v. Whichard, 163 N.C. 241; Price v. Griffin, 150 N.C. 523; Edgerton v. Aycock, 123 N.C. 134; Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N.C. 170; Starnes v. Hill, 112 N.C. 1; Bank v. Dortch, 186 N.C. 510; Wallace v. Wallace, 181 N.C. 158; Hampton v. Griggs, 184 N.C. 13.” Allen v. Hewitt, 212 N.C. 367, 193 S.E. 275.

When a devise is to a named person for life with remainder after his death to “his heirs” or “his bodily heirs” or the “heirs of his body,” nothing else appearing, the devisee becomes seized of a fee simple estate upon the death of the testator subject to any prior life estate created by the will. It is so provided by statute, G.S. 31-38 and G.S. 41-1, and has been so held by numerous opinions of this Court. The line of cases so *73 holding is represented by Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N.C. 170; Bank v. Dortch, 186 N.C. 510; Jackson v. Powell, 225 N.C. 599, 35 S.E. 2d 892; and Whitson v. Barnett, 237 N.C. 483, 75 S.E. 2d 391. See also Priddy & Co. v. Sanderford, 221 N.C. 422, 20 S.E. 2d 341. We could say nothing on this subject which has not already been said which would be helpful to Bench or Bar. Hence an extended discussion of the subject is wholly unnecessary.

Daniel v. Bass, 193 N.C. 294, relied on by defendants, is distinguishable. Furthermore, it does not sustain the position of the defendants.

The judgment entered by the court below is

Affirmed.

Johnson, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 424, 244 N.C. 71, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammer-v-brantley-nc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack