Case Name: MRS. ELLA OWEN v. HENRY S. GATES
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1955-01-14
Citations: 241 N.C. 407
Docket Number: 
Parties: MRS. ELLA OWEN v. HENRY S. GATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 241
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
MRS. ELLA OWEN v. HENRY S. GATES.
(Filed 14 January, 1955.)
Wills § 33g—
The will provided “I give my home and the balance of my land to my darter Ella for her to hold and have her lifetime.” Meld: In the absence of other provision evidencing an intent to the contrary, the plain and unambiguous language limits the estate devised to a life estate, and the devisee cannot convey the fee.
Appeal by plaintiff from Moore, J., October Term 1954, PeesoN.
Affirmed.
Controversy without action under G.S. 1-220.
Plaintiff contracted to sell to defendant the land she took under ber father’s will and to convey to him a fee simple title thereto by deed containing full covenants of warranty. Defendant declined to accept deed for tbe reason plaintiff did not own and could not convey a fee simple title to said land. Thereupon, tbis proceeding was instituted to have tbe court adjudicate tbe respective rights of tbe parties.
Tbe testator, plaintiff’s father, died seized of tbe land in controversy. His will contains tbe following provision:
“1. I leave my property to Be equally divided amonst my three children . . . i lean all of my land to my widow for ber to have tbe Benefit of it so long as she is my widow and when she ceases to Be my widow I want it equel divied amonst my three children.”
In paragraphs 2 and 3 be devised specified tracts of land to bis son and to bis oldest daughter and ber husband. Paragraph 4 is as follows:
“4. I give my home and tbe balance of my land to my darter Ella for ber to bold and have ber lifetime.”
Tbe court below concluded tbat plaintiff took a life estate only in tbe land devised to ber and signed judgment denying plaintiff’s prayer for specific performance. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Davis & Davis for plaintiff' appellant.
Burns & Dong and Charles B. Wood, for defendant appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The language used by the testator in paragraph 4 of bis will is clear and unambiguous. There is no room for construction. What prompted the testator to limit the estate devised to plaintiff to an estate for life we do not know. Even so, this be did in language which cannot be misunderstood, and there is no other provision in the will evidencing an intent to the contrary. We must, therefore, accept the will as the testator made it.
Tbe judgment entered in tbe court below is
Affirmed.