Eason v. . Eason

Brown, J. The plaintiff is the second wife of Nathan Eason, and as such claims dower in tbe whole of a certain tract of land describedfin a deed dated 30 December, 1904, executed by Tbomas Lassiter to Natban Eason and bis first wife, Carrie. It is contended by tbe plaintiff tbat tbe deed in question conveys tbe land to Natban Eason and bis said wife, Carrie, jointly, and tbat the doctrine of survivorship, as between bus-band and wife, applies, inasmuch as Natban Eason survived bis first wife. Ray v. Long, 132 N. C., 895. Tbe premises of the deed are as follows: “This deed, made this tbe 30th day of December, A. D. 1904, by Tbomas U. Las-siter and bis wife, Alice Lassiter, of Greene County and State of North Carolina, of tbe first part, to Natban Eason and wife, Carrie G. Eason, each one-balf interest, of Greene County and State of North Carolina, of tbe second part.” It is unnecessary to set out tbe remainder of tbe deed. Tbe habendum as well as tbe tenendum conveys tbe property to said Natban and Carrie G. Eason and their heirs and assigns. "We are of opinion tbat in construing tbe deed in question tbe language used in tbe premises, to wit, “to Natban Eason and wife, Carrie G. Eason, each one-half interest ” should be taken into consideration in construing tbe deed. "We have said repeatedly in recent decisions tbat a deed will be construed so as to effectuate the intent as gathered from tbe entire instrument, when it can be done by any reasonable interpretation. Acker v. Pridgen, 158 N. C., 338; Triplett v. Williams, 149 N. C., 394; Gudger v. White, 141 N. C., 513. Giving tbe language quoted its ordinary significance, we are of opinion tbe deed created a tenancy in common, and tbat tbe plaintiff is entitled to dower in only one-balf of tbe land described in tbe petition. Tbe language used is too plain to *541 admit of discussion as to its meaning. Tbe evident purpose of tbe draftsman was to convey one undivided balf of tbe land -to tbe husband, and tbe other undivided balf to tbe wife. This question is very fully discussed by Mr. Justice Hoke, in Highsmith v. Page, 158 N. C., 226, which we think is a case very much in point. See, also, Stalcup v. Stalcup, 137 N. C., 305; Hodges v. Fleetwood, 102 N. C., 122; 13 Cyc., 666. Tbe cause is remanded, with instructions to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion. Reversed.