Den on Demise of Dickenson v. Jordan
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Ejectment for lands in the' county of Pitt. Special verdict. The facts disclosed in the special verdict were, that William Spier, late of Pitt county, being seised in fee of the lands described in the Plaintiff’s declaration, made and published his last will, duly executed to pass lands, and bearing date the 10th day of November, 1780: lie therein devised the said land 6‘ to his grandson, William S. Stewart, and his heirs or assigns forever:” and by a codicil to his will,…
Read the full summary
Ejectment for lands in the' county of Pitt. Special verdict. The facts disclosed in the special verdict were, that William Spier, late of Pitt county, being seised in fee of the lands described in the Plaintiff’s declaration, made and published his last will, duly executed to pass lands, and bearing date the 10th day of November, 1780: lie therein devised the said land 6‘ to his grandson, William S. Stewart, and his heirs or assigns forever:” and by a codicil to his will, duly executed to pass lands, bearing date the 5th day of June, 1781, further devised, “ that in case his grandson, William…
1Opinion of the CourtTayIiOS, Judge
By the will of William Spier, an absolute fee-simple is given to his grandson, William S. Stewart $ by the codicil, this is converted into a contingent fee, which is to pass to the testator’s other grandson, John Spier, in tjje event 0f (|ie first devisee’s dying under age or without leaving issue. According to a literal construction of the will, the occurrence of either event would vest the estate in John Spier : but it is evident that such was not the testator’s intention, and this intention ought always to be effectuated, when it docs not contravene tiie rules of Law. He could not have…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Elmore v. AustinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Pilley v. . SullivanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Ham v. . HamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Williams v. . HicksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Bowden v. SpellmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894