Case Name: FLORENCE EASON v. JOSEPH C. EASON
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-09-18
Citations: 159 N.C. 539
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLORENCE EASON v. JOSEPH C. EASON.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 539–541

Head Matter:
FLORENCE EASON v. JOSEPH C. EASON.
(Filed 18 September, 1912.)
Husband and Wife — Jus Accresendi — Deeds and Conveyances — Interpretation— Intent — Tenants in Common — Second Wife — Dower.
In construing a deed to a husband and wife as a whole, to arrive at its intent, it is held that in a conveyance of land to them, “each a one-half interest,” creates a tenancy in common, and the right of survivorship does not apply; and when the wife is dead, the husband remarries and then dies, leaving a widow, the widow is only entitled to dower in the undivided one-half interest in the lands.
Appeal bjr defendant from Justice, J., at February Term, 1912, of GrREENE.
Petition for dower, beard upon issues raised by tbe plaintiff.
Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Justice Brown.
W. F. Evans and L. I. Moore for,plaintiff.
George M. Lindsay cmd J. Pcml Frizzell& for defendant.

Opinion:
Brown, J.
The plaintiff is the second wife of Nathan Eason, and as such claims dower in tbe whole of a certain tract of land describedfin a deed dated 30 December, 1904, executed by Tbomas Lassiter to Natban Eason and bis first wife, Carrie.
It is contended by tbe plaintiff tbat tbe deed in question conveys tbe land to Natban Eason and bis said wife, Carrie, jointly, and tbat the doctrine of survivorship, as between bus-band and wife, applies, inasmuch as Natban Eason survived bis first wife. Ray v. Long, 132 N. C., 895.
Tbe premises of the deed are as follows: "This deed, made this tbe 30th day of December, A. D. 1904, by Tbomas U. Las-siter and bis wife, Alice Lassiter, of Greene County and State of North Carolina, of tbe first part, to Natban Eason and wife, Carrie G. Eason, each one-balf interest, of Greene County and State of North Carolina, of tbe second part."
It is unnecessary to set out tbe remainder of tbe deed. Tbe habendum as well as tbe tenendum conveys tbe property to said Natban and Carrie G. Eason and their heirs and assigns.
"We are of opinion tbat in construing tbe deed in question tbe language used in tbe premises, to wit, "to Natban Eason and wife, Carrie G. Eason, each one-half interest " should be taken into consideration in construing tbe deed. "We have said repeatedly in recent decisions tbat a deed will be construed so as to effectuate the intent as gathered from tbe entire instrument, when it can be done by any reasonable interpretation. Acker v. Pridgen, 158 N. C., 338; Triplett v. Williams, 149 N. C., 394; Gudger v. White, 141 N. C., 513.
Giving tbe language quoted its ordinary significance, we are of opinion tbe deed created a tenancy in common, and tbat tbe plaintiff is entitled to dower in only one-balf of tbe land described in tbe petition. Tbe language used is too plain to admit of discussion as to its meaning. Tbe evident purpose of tbe draftsman was to convey one undivided balf of tbe land -to tbe husband, and tbe other undivided balf to tbe wife.
This question is very fully discussed by Mr. Justice Hoke, in Highsmith v. Page, 158 N. C., 226, which we think is a case very much in point. See, also, Stalcup v. Stalcup, 137 N. C., 305; Hodges v. Fleetwood, 102 N. C., 122; 13 Cyc., 666.
Tbe cause is remanded, with instructions to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed.