Moore v. Tilley
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BROCK, Judge.
The facts are not in dispute. We are confronted with the necessity of determining the intent of Margaret Guy Moore at the time she executed her will in 1906. Only the “First” and “Second” items of the will are involved.
A provision in a will that a devisee shall support a named person is perfectly reasonable and consistent with the policy of the law, and is constantly upheld. In North Carolina, as in most states, provisions relating to support or service, if regarded as conditions, are construed as subsequent rather than precedent whenever possible. 5 Bowe-Parker Revision, Page on…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Helms v. Helms.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Brittain v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Hinton v. . VinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Brittain v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Cook v. . SinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brinkley v. DayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- Howell v. SykesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Fisher v. MeltonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- Fisher v. MeltonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- Moore v. TilleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972