Rhoads v. Hughes

80 S.E.2d 259, 239 N.C. 534, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 394
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 24, 1954·No. 161·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The jurisdiction of the courts may be invoked to construe a will when, and only when, the language used in the will is so uncertain, vague, ambiguous, or conflicting that it creates a doubt as to the true intent of the testator. If the devise is couched in language which is clear and has a recognized legal meaning, there is no room for construction. The applicable rule of law must control. Such is the case here. The feme plaintiff survived the testator. Manifestly, upon his death she became the owner of the locus in fee, subject to the preceding life estate devised to her mother.

The judgment entered in the court below is

Affirmed.

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

Rhoads v. Hughes, 80 S.E.2d 259, 239 N.C. 534, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 394 (N.C. 1954).

80 S.E.2d 259 (Rhoads v. Hughes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ladd v. Estate of Kellenberger
334 S.E.2d 751 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)
Pittman v. Thomas
299 S.E.2d 207 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
First Union National Bank v. Moss
233 S.E.2d 88 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
North Carolina National Bank v. Carpenter
187 S.E.2d 5 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
Wells v. Planters National Bank & Trust Co.
143 S.E.2d 217 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
Wells v. PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
143 S.E.2d 217 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)