From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoyle v. Whitener

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1872
67 N.C. 252 (N.C. 1872)

Opinion

June Term, 1872.

1. In construing a will where it is not punctuated, and is very ungrammatical, it ought to be so read as to make it consistent and sensible;

2. Therefore, where a clause of a will is in these words: "Also all my live stock to be divided between by wife, Amy Blandina, Maria and Michael; all my land and plantation, with all the buildings, I give and bequeath unto the above named Michael Whitener; all my vessels and stands and my windmill or fan, all dues by note or book account I also give to my son Michael Whitener." It was held, that by a proper construction of the clause the land was devised to Michael Whitener.

ACTION to recover possession of land, tried before Mitchell, J., at Spring Term, 1872, of CATAWBA.

Hoke, Bynum and Dupre for plaintiffs.

No counsel for defendants.


The plaintiff and defendant R. M. Whitener are heirs at law of David Whitener. Plaintiffs claim, as heirs at law, two-thirds of the land. R. M. Whitener claims the whole under the will of his father David Whitener. The question submitted to the Court was, whether under a proper construction of the will the defendant was entitled to the whole or his portion as heir as law. The clause of the will alleged to embrace the lands is as follows: "Also all my live stock to be divided between my wife Amy Blandina Maria and Michael; all my land and plantation with all the buildings thereon I give and bequeath unto the above named Michael Whitener; all my vessels and stands and my wind mill or fan, all dues by note or book account I also give and bequeath unto my son Michael Whitener." The Court held that under the will the defendant was entitled to the whole of the land. Plaintiff excepted.

Verdict for defendant. Judgment and appeal.


The question is whether the land in dispute is given in the will to the defendant Michael Whitener. The difficulty in construing the will (253) grows out of the fact, that it is not punctuated and is ungrammatical. Reading the will so as to make it consistent and sensible, we are of the opinion that the land in dispute is given to the defendant Michael Whitener.

PER CURIAM. No Error.


Summaries of

Hoyle v. Whitener

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1872
67 N.C. 252 (N.C. 1872)
Case details for

Hoyle v. Whitener

Case Details

Full title:REUBEN HOYLE et al . v. R. M. WHITENER et al

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jun 1, 1872

Citations

67 N.C. 252 (N.C. 1872)

Citing Cases

Carroll v. Mfg. Co.

ssessing" referring to the devisee, James A. Carroll. but there are words in that clause of the will which…