Case ID: nc_239/html/0534-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EDWIN RHOADS, JR., and Wife, ELIZABETH E. RHOADS, v. LLOYD O. HUGHES and Wife, JEANETTE E. HUGHES.
    (Filed 24 February, 1954.)
    Wills § 31—
    The courts may construe the language of a will only when the language is so uncertain, vague, ambiguous, or conflicting that it creates a doubt as to the true intent of testator. If the language used is clear and has a recognized legal meaning, there is no room for construction, and the recognized legal meaning of the language must be given effect.
    Appeal by defendants from Parker (J. W.), J., November Term, 1953, BeRtie.
    Affirmed.
    
      Civil action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase real property.
    The contract is admitted. Defendants decline to take title for the reason plaintiff Elizabeth Rhoads does not possess and cannot convey a marketable fee simple title to the property they contracted to purchase.
    
      Pritchett & Qooke for plaintiff appellees.
    
    
      Stuart A. Curtis for defendant appellants.
    
   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.