Legal Opinion

Bell v. . Thurston

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 12, 1938PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWiNBORNE, J.

The determinative questions are: (1) Does the clause “Everything I one at my death my wife is to take hole of my estate” in the Fourth Item of the will of Willie J. E. Whitley constitute a residu ary clause wbicb would operate to pass laud not specifically devised? (2) Is Mollie Whitley Thurston, widow of Willie J. R. Whitley, entitled to dower in any undevised realty of which her husband died.seized?

Each question is answered “No.”(1) “The rule is to construe a will so as to give effect to every part and clause thereof, and to harmonize the several clauses, provided the effect is not…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Reid v. . NealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  4. Barco v. . OwensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. Herring v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Williams v. . RandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  2. Coppedge v. CoppedgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Morris v. MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  4. Voncannon v. Hudson Belk Co. of Asheboro, N. C., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  5. First National Bank of Salisbury v. BrawleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API