Court Opinion

ID: 9808416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:37:38.449213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:13.320081
License: Public Domain

Barnhill, J.,
dissenting: The majority conclude that the judgment entered in the court below should be affirmed. In this conclusion I am unable to concur. As the correct application of cardinal rules of construction of wills is involved, I feel compelled to express my views on the question presented. This may not be done intelligently except at the expense of repetition of matters contained in the majority opinion.
Thomas Wesley House died testate, seized and possessed of certain land in Wake County. He had five daughters and four sons who survived him. One daughter, Martha Virginia Paschal, survived the testator and his widow, the life tenant, but died without issue in June, 1948. Who now owns her share in the estate is the question involved.
Item Five of the will, which is the battleground of the controversy, is quoted in the majority opinion.
The one real determinative question posed by the appeal is this : Does the last sentence of the first paragraph of Item Five, to wit, “And if either one of my daughters shall die without issue, their share of the land shall be equally divided among these three of my sons,” provide and describe alternate devisees who shall answer at the roll call in the event one of the daughters is then dead and without issue, or does it limit the estate devised to the daughters ?
If it limits the estate devised, then the majority conclusion is correct. But I adhere to the view that it is a part and parcel of the description of the ultimate takers. It provides a condition or contingency attached to the right to answer when the roll is called. If the majority .are correct, *227then we write out of the will and render utterly meaning-less the provisión therein that the three named daughters “shall have their shares of the land ... in fee simple forever.” If my construction of the language ■used is sound, then this provision is given full force and effect. Every word is accorded its ordinary meaning and no part is rejected. Williams v. Rand, 223 N.C. 734.
What did the testator intend ? The dominant purpose in the interpretation of a will is to discover this intent and give it effect unless it runs counter to some established rule of law or is at variance with public policy. Schaeffer v. Haseltine, 228 N.C. 484; Smith v. Mears, 218 N.C. 193, and cases cited.
In ascertaining this intent, no word ought to be rejected if any meaning can possibly be put upon it. Schaeffer v. Haseltine, supra; Bank v. Corl, 225 N.C. 96; Holland v. Smith, 224 N.C. 255. Apparently repugnant clauses should be reconciled and effect given, where possible, to every clause, phrase, and word. Williams v. Rand, supra.
In order to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the testator or reconcile or eliminate apparently inconsistent or repugnant provisions, it is permissible for the Court to transpose words, phrases, or clauses of the will. Heyer v. Bulluck, 210 N.C. 321; Williams v. Rand, supra.
Applying these cardinal principles of construction in seeking the intent of the testator as expressed in Item Five of his will, every word, phrase, and clause thereof may be given full force and effect, consistent with every other part of the will.
It is apparent that to ascertain who shall take as remaindermen the roll must be called at the death of the life tenant. “When the gift to the survivors is preceded by a particular estate for life or years, words of survivorship, in the absence of anything indicating a contrary intention usually refer to the termination of the particular estate.” The period of division is the death of the tenant for life. Jessup v. Nixon, 193 N.C. 640; Whitley v. McIver, 220 N.C. 435; Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 356; Mercer v. Downs, 191 N.C. 203.
In seeking the intent of the testator, it must be noted that the crucial sentence relates to all five daughters — not merely to the three who are to take their shares in fee. The sentence, therefore, is not couched in terms to indicate the testator was referring to the fee estate devised to the three named daughters, but to those who should answer at the roll call in the event any one of his daughters was then dead without issue surviving.
While the testator desired his real property to go to his five daughters and four sons, he knew that all of them might not be living when the roll was called. He made provision against this contingency. His property was to be divided, at the death of his widow, among his living children. If any child should die before the roll call, leaving children, then *228tbe children should answer and take their parent’s share. If any one of his- daughters should then be dead and without issue, the three named sons should answer in her stead and take her share. One daughter, Meta Mason Straughan, should take only a life estate, with remainder to her children.
It has been suggested, however, that no provision was made against the contingency that a son might die without issue and therefore the last sentence in the first paragraph of Item Five may not be deemed a description of devisees. But this is not the case. Survival was the condition on which the right of the sons depended.
Thus, in my opinion, Item Five of the will should be construed to read in this manner: “At the death of my wife, the land hereinafter described of which I may die seized and possessed, shall be divided among my living children, and if one or more of them is dead, leaving children, then these children shall have the share of their parent. If any one of my daughters shall be dead and without issue, their share of the land shall be equally divided among my sons, Nimfus Green, Ezra Lyman, and Harper Hillman. My daughters, Dorcas Anne, Martha Virginia, and Otelia Sunshine, and my sons, Nimfus Green, Ezra Lyman, and Harper Hillman, shall have their shares of the land herein bounded and described in fee simple forever. My daughter Meta Mason Straughan shall have a life estate with remainder over to her children in fee simple.”
As so construed, every part of the will harmonizes; every word and phrase is given force and effect. The presumption in favor of the first taker prevails, Smith v. Creech, 186 N.C. 187, Dunn v. Hines, 164 N.C. 113, and the express provisions of the statute, G.S. 31-38, are observed. Smith v. Creech, supra.
If the last sentence in the first paragraph of Item Five is construed to limit the estate devised, such construction not only nullifies a pertinent and material provision of the will and has the testator declaring that he desires his daughters to hold their estate in fee and in the next breath limiting that very estate to a defeasible fee, but also converts every devise, save one, into a defeasible fee.
Rejection of any part of the will is the last resort and it must be imperative. Rees v. Williams, 165 N.C. 201.
Why should the testator be so careful to define the quality of the estate devised to these three daughters if he did not mean it? If he meant it, then why should we not adopt that reasonable construction of the will which effectuates that intent ? Martha Virginia Paschal was living when the roll was called. She took her share in fee. The contingency, upon the happening of which the three sons were to answer in her stead, never occurred. They, as devisees, took no part of her share.
*229It cannot be said that the testator, by the contested provision, was seeking to keep his land in his own line of descent, for if a daughter should die without issue, her husband, if any, would take nothing. The land, in any event, would descend to her brothers and sisters or their lineal descendants.
The codicil provision against any contest of the will was not aimed exclusively at the daughters. It applies to all devisees alike.
If we accept the premise that the crucial sentence in Item Five necessarily qualifies the estate devised to the three daughters, then the cases cited in the majority opinion are pertinent and controlling. As I cannot accept that premise as the basis of decision, they, in my opinion, have no bearing on the question presented.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, I vote to reverse.