McClure v. . Taylor

Supreme Court of North Carolina

McClure v. . Taylor

14 S.E. 42, 109 N.C. 641

DecidedSeptember 5, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 14 S.E. 42 (McClure v. . Taylor) 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

McClure v. . Taylor, 14 S.E. 42, 109 N.C. 641 (N.C. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

MereiMON, C. J.:

We think the Court below properly interpreted the devise in question. When the testator simply devised to his son two-thirds of his land, including his dwelling-house and out-buildings, he had reference to its quantity without reference to its value. If he had intended to dispose of it particularly with reference to its value, he would have said so in terms or by some word or words indicative of such purpose. There are no words in the will, and particularly there are none in the devise, indicating a purpose to require it to be divided according to the value thereof. The particular provision that the land should be so divided as to give his son two-thirds of the “bottom” or lowland, including the dwelling-house and out-buildings, and also two-thirds of the upland, goes to show the purpose to divide it according to quantity. The clear purpose is to give the son (the plaintiff) and the defendants parts of both the low and upland. This could certainly be accomplished by dividing it according to quantity. If, however, the intention was to divide it according to the value thereof, it might be that the son would get none of the lowland, or he might get none of the upland, or he might get but part of the buildings; and so as to the defendants as to land. The clause, “ I want it (the land) divided to the best advantage of both parties,” implies simply that the dividing line shall be so located as to promote the advantage and convenience of the parties in the largest measure practicable Nothing appears to show a purpose to make the devisees equal as to value in the proportions specified, or at all in that respect.

Affirmed.

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

MereiMON, C. J.:

We think the Court below properly interpreted the devise in question. When the testator simply devised to his son two-thirds of his land, including his dwelling-house and out-buildings, he had reference to its quantity without reference to its value. If he had intended to dispose of it particularly with reference to its value, he would have said so in terms or by some word or words indicative of such purpose. There are no words in the will, and particularly there are none in the devise, indicating a purpose to require it to be divided according to the value thereof. The particular provision that the land should be so divided as to give his son two-thirds of the “bottom” or lowland, including the dwelling-house and out-buildings, and also two-thirds of the upland, goes to show the purpose to divide it according to quantity. The clear purpose is to give the son (the plaintiff) and the defendants parts of both the low and upland. This could certainly be accomplished by dividing it according to quantity. If, however, the intention was to divide it according to the value thereof, it might be that the son would get none of the lowland, or he might get none of the upland, or he might get but part of the buildings; and so as to the defendants as to land. The clause, “ I want it (the land) divided to the best advantage of both parties,” implies simply that the dividing line shall be so located as to promote the advantage and convenience of the parties in the largest measure practicable Nothing appears to show a purpose to make the devisees equal as to value in the proportions specified, or at all in that respect.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.E. 42, 109 N.C. 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclure-v-taylor-nc-1891.