Conrad v. . Goss
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.
Tbe title of defendant Jacob L. Goss, which is here brought in question, was derived under tbe will of Addie M. Goss, wherein she devised to. him all her property, with tbe added provision, “But should my son Jacob L. Goss die without heirs, I want tbe property to go to my daughter Maggie B. Goss,” with further limitation over, in ease Maggie B. Goss sbo-uld die without “heirs,” to the brothers of the testatrix.
It is obvious that by the use of the word “heirs” in the will the testatrix meant children or issue. The plaintiffs so concede. While in the first part of the will the language is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Jones v. . WhichardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Rollins v. . KeelSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Smith v. . BrissonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Whitson v. BarnettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. GrubbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. WaddellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Finlayson v. Cabarrus Bank & Trust Co.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1960
- Hales v. . RenfrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.