Case ID: nc_181/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "'WalKeb, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. W. WISE et al. v. J. D. SHORT.
    (Filed 4 May, 1921.)
    1. Wills — Letters—Animo Testandi — Signature—Holograph Wills.
    A letter written by tbe deceased to bis brother, signed by bim “Brother Alex,” just before tbe deceased bad gone to a hospital for treatment, saying, “Brother Richard, take care of yourself and stay with William at the store. I am going to the hospital on account of not feeling well. 1 hope God nothing happens, but if it does, everything is yours. Got some money in the bank, but don’t know how much we owe on house. ... I hope in a few days I will come back,” etc., indicates the writer’s present intention to dispose of his property, and is provable as his holograph will, when our statute has been complied with relating thereto.
    3. Courts — Inherent Powers — Interpreter—Wills—Records.
    The court has inherent power to appoint a duly qualified interpreter to act in that capacity upon the probate of a will written in a foreign language and offered for probate in the courts of this State. It is suggested that the original will be copied on the record with its translation.
    3. Mortgages — Deeds in Trust — Sales—Foreclosure—Statutes.
    Where a trust deed to secure money loaned on lands has been foreclosed, G. S., 2591, requires the sale be kept open for ten days for the tender of increased bids, etc., but on the facts of this appeal it appears that an irregularity in conveying the land before the expiration of the statutory time could not have prejudiced any of the parties, and, also, that they are concluded by the judgment upholding the validity of the transaction.
    Appeal by defendant from Harding, J., at April Term, 1921, of MeCKLENBuEG.
    This case comes here upon a case agreed, heard before Judge Harding, with reference to the title to a house and lot in the city of Charlotte, N. C., the plaintiffs having entered into an agreement with the defendant for the purchase of the same by him. The defendant, under advice of counsel, declined to take title, for tbat tbe same was defective as to a one-balf interest in tbe land purported to bave been devised under a will made in tbe Syrian language by Alex. Salem to Eicbard Salem, predecessor in title of tbe plaintiffs; and further, tbat tbe other or second source of title to same one-balf interest was defective, it being as follows: that tbe said Eicbard Salem having failed to pay tbe amount of tbe debt secured by tbe deed of trust due by him to bis brother, tbe devisor in said will, tbe property was sold by tbe trustee and purchased by Eicbard Salem at public sale, but tbe defendant, through bis attor-. ney, objected to tbe fact tbat tbe deed made by tbe trustee was dated and recorded before tbe expiration of ten days after tbe public sale, and said deed of trust having been made after 1 May, 1915. These are tbe two principal points in controversy. It is admitted tbat tbe sale was otherwise regular and tbat there were no advance bids, and tbat tbe estate of the intestate has been duly settled, and tbat tbe property has passed through several mesne conveyances to tbe present owner. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appealed.
    
      E. B. Preston for plaintiffs.
    
    
      No counsel for defendant.
    
   'WalKeb, J.,

after stating tbe facts: Tbe will, dated 6 October, 1918, is as follows:

“Brother Eicbard, take care of yourself and stay with William at tbe store. I am going to tbe hospital on account of not feeling well. I hope God nothing happens, but if it does, everything is yours. Got some money in tbe bank, but don’t know bow much we owe on bouse. Mr. Buchanan will tell you. We do not owe anything else except tbat. I hope in a few days I will come back. All papers at tbe same bank we deal with, Box 305. (Signed) Brother Alex.”

This paper, though in tbe form of a letter, is sufficient, in substance, as a holograph will. It was written by tbe testator and found among bis valuable papers and effects. He was about to enter a hospital for treatment when be wrote it, and was apprehensive tbat be would not survive it, though be expressed tbe hope tbat be would return to bis home. Tbe paper was evidently written and signed by him animo tes-tandi, and be intended it to be bis will. It contains evidence of bis present intention to dispose of bis property and to give it to bis brother, Eicbard Salem, bis own name being Alex. Salem. Tbe paper was proved as a holograph will according to tbe statute, and recorded. Tbat it is in form sufficient to operate as a valid will will appear from tbe following authorities: In re Will of Ledford, 176 N. C., 610; In re Will of Bennett, 180 N. C., 5, and cases cited therein; Milon v. Stanley, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1126; Gardner on Wills, at p. 40; Spencer v. Spencer, 163 N. C., 88; In re Will of J. Vestal Johnson, ante, 303.

Gardner on Wills, supra, says: “So a letter written by a testator to a friend, authorizing him to take charge and dispose of the testator’s property, and to sell and convey the same as his executor, properly attested, Sufficiently evidences the testator’s intention to dispose of his property, and may be probated as a will. But a letter, like any other instrument, to take effect as a will, must be executed in compliance with the requirements of the statute, and must express a genuine present and not merely an anticipated testamentary intent.” Jarman on Wills (6 Ed.), at p. 21, expresses the same view, as follows: “The law has not made requisite to the validity of a will that it should assume any particular form, or be couched in language technically appropriate to its testamentary character. It is sufficient that the instrument, however irregular in form or inartificial in expression, discloses its testamentary character and the intention of the maker respecting the posthumous destination of his property; and if this appears to be the nature of its contents, any contrary title or designation he may have given to it will be disregarded.” In this case the testator expresses the present intention that his brother, Richard Salem, should, at his death, have all of his estate. It was no direction to have a will written for him to that effect, but that he should take under the letter then written and signed by himself, and therefore the case falls directly within the operation of the principle set forth in the authorities above cited. The letter was signed “Brother Alex,” but that is a sufficient signature as he adopted it as his own, and it is the same as if he had signed his own name in full. “The signing of a will in an assumed or fictitious name has been held sufficient, if the testator intended it as his signature.” 40 Oyc., 1104. We need not go so far, as the signature itself is not assumed or fictitious, but clearly indicates the person who used it.

As to the translation of the will by an interpreter of the Syrian language, it is only necessary to say that the court possesses the power to appoint an interpreter for the proper transaction of its business, and any qualified person can be appointed and act in this capacity, as was done in this case. Farrar v. Warfield, 8 Martin (La.), p. 695. It appears that the interpreter was duly appointed and sworn. It is said in 15 Corpus Juris., at p. 871: “Provision is sometimes made by law for the appointment of an interpreter for designated courts or purposes; and even in the absence of express authority it is the right and duty of courts to employ and swear interpreters of foreign languages in cases where the necessity therefore arises. An interpreter must be competent to perform the duty assumed.” It is considered to be among the inherent powers of the court to appoint an interpreter, if necessary for it to be done, in order tbat tbe true meaning of tbe foreign language used by witnesses, or in documents, may be understood by tbe court and jury. 11 Cyc., 720. We suggest tbat tbe will in tbe original text should be copied on tbe record of wills in tbe clerk’s office witb tbe translated copy now there.

Richard Salem conveyed tbe land to E". R. Preston in trust to secure a debt due to.W. F. Buchanan, and Preston, as trustee, sold tbe land under tbe power contained in tbe deed to Richard Salem, and conveyed tbe land to him.

Tbe other question turns upon tbe proper construction of O. S., 2591, witb reference to the special facts of this case. It is clear to us tbat it was intended by section 2591 to require tbat tbe sale be kept open, for ten days, so tbat increased bids might be tendered during tbat time. But in this case it is admitted tbat there was no offer of an increased bid by any one, and Richard Salem was tbe person who received tbe deed from Mr. Preston and bad it registered, so tbat as Alex. Salem’s estate has been fully settled and Buchanan, tbe creditor of Salem, whose claim was secured by deed, has been paid, we cannot see bow any one can be prejudiced by tbe failure of tbe trustee to keep tbe sale open for increased .bids, or for tbe benefit of any creditors, and Richard Salem, who seems to be tbe only one having any right of objection to closing tbe sale earlier than tbe time fixed by tbe statute, was himself responsible for this irregularity.

We can, of course, decide this case so as to bind and conclude only those who are parties to it, but as tbe facts appear in tbe case agreed, tbe title of tbe plaintiffs to tbe lot seems to be valid, and sufficient to pass as a good and indefeasible one to tbe defendant by tbe deed from them to him. Tbe estate of Alex. Salem having been finally settled, there being no unsatisfied creditors, and Richard Salem being estopped to assert any claim, we are unable to see tbat any cloud rests upon tbe title.

Tbe court held tbe plaintiffs’ title to be valid and indefeasible and gave judgment for tbe plaintiffs upon tbe admitted facts, and defendant appealed, and this Court, for tbe reasons stated, affirms the judgment.

Affirmed.