Johnson v. . Johnson

13 S.E. 183, 108 N.C. 620
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 S.E. 183 (Johnson v. . Johnson) 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
Johnson v. . Johnson, 13 S.E. 183, 108 N.C. 620 (N.C. 1891).

Opinion

It appears that William Johnson died in the county of Buncombe on 20 September, 1890, leaving a last will and testament, which was duly proven, and the plaintiff qualified as executor thereof. *Page 431

The following is so much of the will as need be reported:

"In the event of my death without other and further distribution of the remainder of my estate, it is my wish and desire that this paper-writing be taken as in effect and purpose my last will and testament, and the basis of the final distribution of my effect; and to that end I hereby appoint my son Thomas D. Johnson my executor, who is hereby fully charged with the duty and authority of carrying out the purposes and intent expressed in it, viz., a distribution of equal portions of my remaining property to each of my children, or their lineal heirs, with the same conditions annexed as expressed in my deed of gift now about to be made, and taking herewith and take receipt therefor of like tenor (621) and manner as those bearing even date with these presents. And in regard to property not easily parceled out and assessed in equal portions, whether the same be lands or stock, real or personal property, it is my direction that the same be sold at public auction to the highest bidder for cash, or on time, duly advertising the time, place, terms, etc.; and after deducting the necessary expenses and his reasonable commission, divide the proceeds equally among my children or their lineal heirs as herein directed.

"But at said sale the said Thomas D. Johnson is not to be debarred from becoming a purchaser on account of his executorship, but is to be on equal footing in regard thereto with the rest of my children. My purpose being not only to secure equality in distribution of my effects among my children according to the terms and limitations and conditions expressed in my said deed of gift, but also to hedge them in with safeguards against the contingency of litigation. It being an expressed condition of this and each bestowment that the recipient in receiving the same recognizes the validity and effect of this paper-writing as my last will and testament, and thereby expressly pledge their acquiescence and assent to the provisions and conditions thereof both now and ever hereafter.

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 18 September, 1885.

"WM. JOHNSON." [Seal.]

The devisees and legatees of this will each contends for a different interpretation of some of its material provisions, and insists upon different views of the powers of the executor to be exercised in the administration of the estate. The latter brings this action against the former, and asks the court to interpret the will, and particularly to advise and direct him as to his duties in the following specified respects: *Page 432

(622) "1. That the plaintiff, by this action, desires to obtain from the court its advice, direction and opinion in construing said will, and as to his duty thereunder, and especially in the following particulars:

"First. Whether, by the terms of said will, he should divide or partition among the devisees and legatees mentioned therein the said real estate, or any part thereof, and if so, should he assign the value of the several parts; and whether said will vests in him a discretion as to which part should be divided by metes and bounds, and which part should be sold.

"Second. That if the court shall be of the opinion that any part should be divided among the said devisees and legatees, would it be the duty of the plaintiff, as executor, to make such division and to execute deeds to the devisees for their several allotments, or would they each take as purchasers under said will, simply?

"Third. That if the court be of the opinion that the plaintiff should execute deeds as aforesaid, should the deeds so executed contain the conditions and limitations annexed to the property by the provisions of said will?

"Fourth. If the court be of the opinion that the plaintiff should execute deeds with said conditions and limitations as aforesaid, how would the plaintiff take title as one of said devisees under the will?

"Fifth. That if the said real estate in the opinion of the court should be sold as a whole or in part (provided in plaintiff's judgment the same cannot be divided by metes and bounds without prejudice to the parties in interest), should the plaintiff execute deed in fee simple to the purchasers free from all conditions and limitations contained in said will, and divide the proceeds of said sale, taking from the said legatees and devisees their receipt with such conditions and limitations (623) expressed therein and of the same tenor and in like manner as was taken from said devisees and legatees by testator in receipt dated 18 September, 1885, as per copy herewith annexed, marked Exhibit `B.'

"Sixth. If, in the opinion of the court, the said real estate or any part thereof should be sold for division under said will, and any of the said legatees and devisees should purchase at said sale, should the plaintiff as executor execute to them deeds in fee simple without the conditions and limitations expressed therein?

"Seventh. That the plaintiff is willing and ready to do and perform any and all of the opinions and directions of the court in the premises, and prays that the court will advise and direct him in each and every one of the particulars above stated, and in such other particulars as to the court may seem proper in construing said will."

Upon the facts admitted the court gave judgment, whereof the following is a copy: *Page 433

"Upon these facts the court is of opinion and adjudges as follows:

"1. That Thomas D. Johnson is vested with the power, and it is his duty, as executor, to divide the real and personal estate devised and bequeathed in said will equally among the said devisees and legatees whenever in his judgment such estate can be easily parceled out and assessed in equal portions. But whenever, in his judgment, any of said real or personal estate cannot be easily parceled out and assessed in equal portions, the said executor is authorized and it is his duty to sell the same in the manner directed in said will.

"2. That it is the duty of said executor to make such division, or cause the same to be made under his supervision, in such manner as will best conduce to perfect equality of division as nearly as possible. That any allotment of such real estate should be in writing under the hand and seal of said Thomas D. Johnson, which refers to the will under which it is made and designates and allots to every devisee his (624) or her part of the real estate actually divided in severalty, and states the cash value fixed upon such real estate as is in it allotted as of the time of the death of the testator, but contains no conditions, limitations or restrictions, and this writing shall be duly proved or acknowledged and registered in said county as deeds are ordinarily proved or acknowledged and registered in said county according to law.

"3. In making such division or allotment, or division and allotment, the executor shall take, signed by every devisee and legatee, six receipts, of like tenor with that mentioned in finding of fact No. 4, for the amount of the value of the real and personal estate so to such devisees and legatees respectively allotted as fixed by said executor in making such division or allotment, or division and allotment, as aforesaid, as by said will directed, which receipts shall contain the conditions and stipulations set forth specifically in said will.

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

Related

Doub v. Harper
65 S.E.2d 309 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 S.E. 183, 108 N.C. 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-johnson-nc-1891.