Case ID: nc_3/html/0154-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Hall, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. Spillar Cutlar's administrators vs. James Cutlar's executors.
    
    '"¡PROVER for Negroes which Spillar in 1794 gave by deed to his daughter for life, and by another deed, dated the 8th of February, 1794s to his daughter and her son, J. S. Cutlar, for their lives, and the life of the longest liver or survivor, remainder to the heirs of the survivor. Cutlar who had married the daughter, conveyed by deed, dated the 10th of February, 1794, to James Spillar, and covenanted never to claim any property which should come to his wife by purchase or descent.
   Hall, Judge.

Evidence may be given to prove that the deed last mentioned was really delivered on the Stb, and before the ■deed to the daughter and her son. The date is not of the essence of the deed, and it is not sound, as argued, that Cutlar being a pavty to the deed and now a plaintiff is therefore estopped to say the contrary of that which appeared on his own deed.—Vide 2 Rep. 4-Dy. 307—A. pl. 67—Comber 83.

As to the other points, he said, that heirs of the body when spoken of chattels, were in some cases descriptive of the person, to take, and were words of purchase, not of limitation ; but the word heirs simply was always a word of limitation, and operated to give the whole property to the survivor, and is here tantamount to executors. There is no difference between saving remainder in fee to the heirs of the survivor, and remainder to the heirs of the survivor. The absolute property was in suspense rill th" death of one, but upon that death the absolute property immediately vested in the survivor, and was n® 'long?? contingent, and consequently his administrator ought to secover.