Allen v. . Parker

HoKe, J. It appears that P. T. Massey, tbe former owner, died in Jobnston County on 10 April, 1900, leaving a last will and testament, in wbicb be disposed of one-balf of a tract of land known as as tbe Polly Watson place to bis two daughters, Flonnie Massey, later married to defendant, and Aggie Massey, for life, remainder to their children, etc. Tbe facts more directly pertinent to tbe issue being stated in tbe case agreed, as follows: “2. That item 9 of this will is as follows: T give and devise to my daughters, Flonnie Massey and Aggie Massey, for and during the term of their natural lives, my one-balf interest in tbe 676 acres of land known as tbe Polly Watson place, and at tbe death of either or both of them, then said land shall go to tbe child or children of each, tbe child or children representing tbe mother in interest/ “3. That the said Flonnie Massey and tbe defendant, J. D. Parker, were married on 26 April, 1900, and that a son was born of said marriage on 12 December, 1901, and died on 13 December, 1901, without issue; and that no other .child was born to Flonnie Massey (Flonnie Parker). “4. That Flonnie Massey (Flonnie Massey Parker) died on 1 November, 1918, leaving a last will and testament, which was probated and recorded in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court of Johnston County, which, after certain specific devises, which devises do not affect the property described in 'item 9’ of the will, made a general devise of all her property to the defendant. “5. That Aggie Allen is a sister of Flonnie Massey (Flonnie Parker), deceased,, and is a daughter of P. T. Massey; that Laura Grantham, Ada Oulbreth, Patrick T. Barnes, Henry Barnes, are children of a deceased sister of Flonnie Massey (Flonnie Parker), and are grandchildren of P. T. Massey, deceased; that Joe Barnes, Mary Barnes, and Laura Barnes are great-nieces and nephews of Flonnie Massey (Flonnie Parker), deceased, and are great-grandchildren of P. T. Massey, de *378 ceased; that at tbe time of tbe death of Elonnie Massey (Elonnie Parker),-on 1 November, 1918, tbe plaintiffs mentioned in tbis paragraph were tbe only heirs at law of Elonnie Massey (Flonnie Parker).” On these facts we are of opinion that tbe court below has correctly ruled that defendant is tbe owner of tbe one-fourth interest in controversy. Upon tbe birth of a living child of defendant and bis former wife, Elonnie (née Massey), such child became seized of a vested remainder in tbe land, to tbe extent of one-half of one-half of same, to wit, one-fourth. Taking by purchase under tbe will of bis grandfather, P. T. Massey, tbis child was thereby constituted a new propositus, and, under rule 6 and rule 12, our Canons of Descent, as then written (1st Revisal 1905, chapter 30), having died “without issue capable of inheriting, or brother or sister, or issue of such,” the father became sole heir of the interest. Rule 12 provides that “every person in whom a seizin is required by any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to have been seized if he may have had any right, title or interest in the inheritance.” And the latter clause of rule 6, as it existed at the time of this descent, was as follows: “Provided, that in all eases where the person last seized shall have left no issue capable of inheriting, nor brother, nor sister, nor issue of such, the inheritance shall vest in the father, if living, and if not, then in the mother.” The infant child of defendant and his wife, Elonnie, having so died, the father, under this statute, became the owner of this remainder as heir to his child.” Since that time, on 29 January, 1915, rule 6 has been amended so as to carry such an inheritance to the father and mother as tenants in common, if both are living, and if only one of them is living, then to the survivor. Chapter 9, Laws 1915, and now appearing in C. S., ch. 29. The interest having vested by descent prior to the enactment of this latter statute, the father takes the entire interest; and if it were otherwise, the facts show that Flonnie Parker has devised all of her property to defendant. The decided cases on the subject are in full support of his Honor’s ruling. Early v. Early, 134 N. C., 269; Britton v. Miller, 63 N. C., 270; Chambers v. Payne, 59 N. C., 277; Mason v. White, 53 N. C., 421; Sanderlin v. Deford, 47 N. C., 75; Vanhook v. Vanhook, 21 N. C., 589. In Latham v. Lumber Co., 139 N. C., 9, to which we were cited by plaintiff, the children took but a contingent remainder, dependent upon their being alive at the death of the life tenant, but no such provision appears in the present will; the infant child, as stated, having become seized of a vested interest at his 'birth. Affirmed.