W. R. Grace & Co. v. Johnson

*735 Stacy, 0. J. On tbe bearing, tbe question presented was properly-made to depend upon tbe construction of tbe following clause in tbe will of Archibald Bryant Godwin, wbo died 13 April, 1899: “Item Third: I devise and bequeath to my beloved son, Archie Bradley Godwin, my homestead, including all buildings and fixtures thereto belonging to him and tbe heirs of bis body, if any, there should be, and if none at his death, then to his brothers and sisters, their heirs and assigns, forever, bounded and described as follows:” (Description not in dispute.) Archie Bradley Godwin is now living and is the father of one child, also living. Prior to the execution of a deed by the said devisee conveying the property to H. L. Godwin on 1 January, 1919, Archie Bradley Godwin had taken deeds from all his living brothers and sisters, and the children (all of age) of a deceased brother for their interests, “both present and prospective, and both vested and contingent in the land described in item three of the will of Archibald Bryant Godwin.” In view of the stipulation of the parties, it would appear that on authority of the decisions rendered in O’Neal v. Borders, 170 N. C., 483, and Hobgood v. Hobgood, 169 N. C., 485, and the principle they illustrate, judgment should have been entered for the plaintiff. These decisions are so clearly decisive of the question presented that we deem it unnecessary to do more than refer to them. . Error.