Hines v. Mercer

6 Citing cases

  1. Thomas v. Thomas

    258 N.C. 590 (N.C. 1963)   Cited 10 times

    However, the fact that a will speaks from the death of the testator, `relates to the subject matter of disposition only, and does not in any manner interfere with the construction in regard to the objects of the gift.' Hines v. Mercer, 125 N.C. 71, 34 S.E. 106; Robbins v. Windley, 56 N.C. 286. Consequently, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that the intent of the testator is to be ascertained, if possible, from a consideration of the language used by him, and `the will is to be considered in the light of the conditions and circumstances existing at the time the will was made.' Trust Co. v. Waddell, supra; Trust Co. v. Schneider, 235 N.C. 446, 70 S.E.2d 578; In re Will of Johnson, 233 N.C. 570, 65 S.E.2d 12; Cannon v. Cannon, 225 N.C. 611, 36 S.E.2d 17; Heyer v. Bulluck, 210 N.C. 321, 186 S.E. 356; Scales v. Barringer, 192 N.C. 94, 133 S.E. 410; Raines v. Osborne, 184 N.C. 599, 114 S.E. 849; Herring v. Williams, 153 N.C. 231, 69 S.E. 140.

  2. Trust Co. v. Green

    80 S.E.2d 771 (N.C. 1954)   Cited 17 times

    However, the fact that a will speaks from the death of the testator, "relates to the subject matter of disposition only, and does not in any manner interfere with the construction in regard to the objects of the gift." Hines v. Mercer, 125 N.C. 71, 34 S.E. 106; Robbins v. Windly, 56 N.C. 286. Consequently, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that the intent of the testator is to be ascertained, if possible, from a consideration of the language used by him, and "the will is to be considered in the light of the conditions and circumstances existing at the time the will was made."

  3. Tyer v. Meadows

    3 S.E.2d 264 (N.C. 1939)   Cited 3 times
    In Tyer v. Meadows, 215 N.C. 733, 3 S.E.2d 264, testator bequeathed two policies of insurance upon his life to his daughter by his first marriage. The will recited that the daughter had been named beneficiary in the policies.

    The death is a prospective event, but the date of the will refers to actual conditions. Hines v. Mercer, 125 N.C. 71 (74). The intention of the testator, taken from the four corners of the will, is the polar star to guide in the construction.

  4. McCullen v. Daughtry

    129 S.E. 611 (N.C. 1925)   Cited 13 times

    Hence, in order to preserve and perpetuate the primary principle which underlies the statutory right to make wills and testaments, we must find the intention of the testator, and give it effective force unless it contravenes the law, or public policy. Edens v. Williams, 7 N.C. 27; In re Knowles, 148 N.C. 461; Harper v. Harper, supra; Capehart v. Burrus, 122 N.C. 119; Hines v. Mercer, 125 N.C. 71; Holt v. Holt, 114 N.C. 241; Houck v. Patterson, 126 N.C. 885; Lynch v. Melton, 150 N.C. 595; Rollins v. Keel, 115 N.C. 68; Tucker v. Moye, 115 N.C. 71; Dunn v. Hines, 164 N.C. 113; Taylor v. Brown, 165 N.C. 157; Lynch v. Melton, 150 N.C. 595. With this approach to the consideration of the testator's meaning and intention in using the term "money on hand," and mindful of the rules applicable, we are minded to agree with the construction declared by the learned judge in the court below.

  5. Brown v. Hamilton

    47 S.E. 128 (N.C. 1904)   Cited 6 times

    A case very much in point is In re Champion, 45 N.C. 246. Hines v. Mercer, 125 N.C. 71, is not in point, for there the subsequently acquired land did not come within the terms of the specific devise, and, besides, there was a residuary clause. The reference to the number of acres (200 acres) cannot control the boundaries described in the deed.

  6. Tighe v. Michal

    41 N.C. App. 15 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 6 times
    Holding a person ceases to be able to form testamentary intent when a person becomes mentally incompetent

    We do not think that the legislature intended that G.S. 31-41 require any such result. Although that statute ordinarily requires that a will be construed as though executed immediately prior to the testator's death, our Supreme Court has indicated on several occasions that the statute will not be applied in a blind or mechanical manner and that other appropriate factors may be considered. E.g., Peele v. Finch, 284 N.C. 375, 200 S.E.2d 635 (1973); Trust Co. v. Green, 239 N.C. 612, 80 S.E.2d 771 (1954); Tyer v. Meadows, 215 N.C. 733, 3 S.E.2d 264 (1939); Hines v. Mercer, 125 N.C. 71, 34 S.E. 106 (1899). Additionally, the majority rule is that the principle of ademption does not apply when the testator becomes incompetent and the subject matter of a specific bequest or devise is sold by a guardian.