Case Name: DEN on demise of MABLY versus STAINBACK & TURNER
Court: North Carolina Superior Court
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1792-10
Citations: 1 Mart. 75
Docket Number: 
Parties: DEN on demise of MABLY versus STAINBACK & TURNER.
Judges: Ashe, J. doubted.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 75–76

Head Matter:
Fayetteville,
October Term, 1792.
DEN on demise of MABLY versus STAINBACK & TURNER.
EJECTMENT. The Jury brought in the following special verdict.
“The Jury sworn, find that John Hardiway died, seized in fee “of the premites in question, that he executed his will in due form “of law, in these words, “In the name of God, I John Hardiway, “of the county of Brunswick, being in perfect sense and sound me“mory, do make this my last will and testament, revoking all others. “My soul I commit to Christ, who redeemed it, my body to be de“cently buried, and for my estate that God has blessed me with, I "give as follows, to wit, I give to my daughter Frances Caudel the “following negroes, Little Tom, David, Burnett, Harry, Sue, Sterling, to her and her heirs forever. Item, I give to my son “Marcus Hardiway, the following negroes, Great Tom, Isabel, Sam, “Little Hannah, Bob, Frank, to him and his heirs forever. Item, “I give to my daughter Sarah Hardiway, the following negroes, “Nat, Lucy, Lydia, Jane, Sall, Senos, to her and her heirs fore“ver. Item. I give to daughter Nancy Hardiway the following “negroes, Patty, Claris, Let, Little Peg, Old Hannah, Old Lewis, “Item. I do also give to my son Marcus Hardaway, One Horse, “known by the name Dick, and one feather bed, and to my daughter “Frances Caudel, the filly known by the name of Mark Anthony. I “tem, the rest of estate, negroes, stock and house furniture, to be “equally divided between my wife Mary Hardiway and my son “Hartnell Hardiway and daughter Rebecca Hardiway. I likewise “do appoint my son Marcus Hardiway and William Caudel my ex"ecutors, whereunto I have set my hand and fixed my seal, this “ninth day of December, in the fourth year of our commonwealth.”
“Test,
“William Harrison,
her JOHN HARDIWAY. (L. S.)"
“Rose X Stewart,
Mark.
“James Owen.
“That he died in the year 1779, leaving Marcus Hardiway his “eldest son and heir at law, and one of his executors. That Marcus “Hardiway died, having entered on the premises, that the plaintiff is “lessor of the coheirs of said Marcus: they farther find that the de“fendants are lessees of the widow Mary Hardiway, since Mary Clark “and her children Hartnell Hardiway and Rebecca in said will men“tioned.”
Taylor for the defendant.
The question is, whether under the word of the will, the widow Mary Hardiway, Hartnell Hardiway, and Rebecca Hardiway, under whom the defendants claim, take any, and what part of the real estate? The testator’s intention to dispose of all his property, is manifested by the introductory as well as residuary clause. Estate is a technical expression, to which a plain and definite meaning is affixed. It comprehends the right a man has to real as well as to personal property, and even by grant of a man’s estate, all shall pass what he can grant, a fortiori by devise. Woods inst. 117, 129. The words “all a man’s estate,” have been held to carry a fee, without any words of limitation or perpetuity. 1 Wils. 333, It is now clearly settled that the words all his estate, will pass every thing a man has, unless accompanied with a local description. Farther, if the word estate does not, in the present case, it will be wholly inoperative, since whatever else the testator had is specifically bequeathed, or covered by negroes, stock and house furniture.
The introduction is material: nor that, independantly of other circumstances, it is sufficient to change the construction of a device, but as it assists to shew the intention of the testator. Cowper, 299. The case of Turner vs. Moore is to nearly alike in its circumstances, that it ought to govern the decision of the present; and with regard to the authority of that case, there can be no doubt, as it was decided by lord King, whose decree was affirmed by lord Talbot. Cases temp. Talbot, 284. He also relied upon 2 Term Rep. 411, 6 Mod. 106. Salk. 236. 3 Mod. 45. 2 Vest. 564. 2 Peere Williams, 525. 2 Evu. C. A. 329. H. Bl. Rep. 223.
Moore for the lessors of the plaintiff,
argued that the heir at law could not be disinherited without express words, that the generality of the word estate, was limitted by the subsequent word, which shew what the testator meant by using it. That residue must be of something which went before, but lands are no where mentioned in the will, he cited and relied upon 2 Eq. Cas. abridg. 328. 2 Sla Ray. 1324.

Opinion:
Williams, J.
was decidedly of opinion that the word estate comprehended all a man could dispose of, real as well as personal.
Ashe, J. doubted.
Curia advisare vult.
The suit was afterwards taken out of Court.