From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carson v. Carson

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1841
36 N.C. 329 (N.C. 1841)

Opinion

(June Term, 1841.)

A. devised as follows: "I give and bequeath all my estate, real and personal, to my son L. C., to the support of him and his brother G.; that is, that G. gets no more than what support him equal to L. C. should he not be extravagant." Held, that the legal estate in all the property vested in L. C., but a moiety of the beneficial interest belonged to G.

THIS was a bill filed at March Term, 1841, of BURKE Court of Equity by the complainants, as administrators with the will annexed of John Carson, deceased, praying the court to put a proper construction upon the said will, that they might be governed thereby. The bill alleged that the said John Carson had duly made his last will and testament, and that the same was duly admitted to probate, both as to real and personal estate, in the following words, to-wit: "In the name of God, amen. I, John Carson, do make this my last will and testament. I give and bequeath all my estate, real and personal, to my son Logan Carson, to the support of him and his brother George, that is, that George gets no more than what will support him equal to Logan, should he not be extravagant." The bill then alleged that the testator died seized and possessed of a very large real and personal estate, and that doubts had been entertained and claims interposed in consequence of those doubts as to the proper construction of the will: (1) Whether the whole (330) of the said property vested in the said Logan, subject only to the charge of supporting the said George; (2) whether the said Logan and George are tenants in common of the said property or whether the said Logan holds a moiety thereof in trust for the said George; (3) whether the said Logan and George are mere trustees and hold said property for the next of kin of the deceased; (4) whether the said Logan is a trustee and holds said property in trust for the next of kin, subject to his and George's support; and (5) whether the said Logan and the said George are entitled merely to their support out of said property during their lives. And the bill prayed the advice and direction of the court in these matters. The answer of George Carson, who was alone made a party defendant, filed at the same term, admitted all the facts stated in the bill and submitted to any decree the court might make therein. The cause was set for hearing by consent upon the bill and answer, immediately, and also by consent transmitted to the Supreme Court.

D. F. Caldwell for the plaintiffs.

W. J. Alexander for the defendant.


The object of this bill is to obtain a judicial construction of a will so obscurely expressed that it is impossible to pronounce with confidence upon the intention of the testator. It is indeed sufficiently manifest that the whole legal interest in the testator's property was given by the will to his (331) son Logan. It is also apparent that the beneficial interest in this property was, to some extent and in some mode, designed to be apportioned between his sons Logan and George. The legal estate was not given to Logan for his benefit only, but for or to "the support of him and his brother George." This was the end and purpose of the donation. So far, therefore, it would seem that George was as much the declared object of the testator's bounty as Logan, and if nothing else can be found in the will to contradict this inference or to show a different intent the will must be so construed as to secure to each an equal share of this bounty. The part of the will which follows purports to be explanatory, but unfortunately the attempted explanation is the part, of all others, the least intelligible. It is thus expressed, "that is, that George gets no more than Logan if he be not extravagant." To whom do these latter words refer? If to George, is he to have more than Logan provided he be extravagant? If to Logan, in what degree is George's share to be enlarged because of Logan's extravagance? It is impossible to collect with reasonable assurance from the explanation subjoined any information as to the purpose of the testator in the previous part of the will, and therefore the inference already drawn therefrom remains unaffected by that attempted explanation. It must be declared that the defendant George is entitled to a moiety of the beneficial interest in all the testator's property.

PER CURIAM. Declared accordingly.

(332)


Summaries of

Carson v. Carson

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1841
36 N.C. 329 (N.C. 1841)
Case details for

Carson v. Carson

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM W. CARSON and LOGAN CARSON, Administrators with the will annexed…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jun 1, 1841

Citations

36 N.C. 329 (N.C. 1841)