Parker v. . Eason

Clarkson, J. The question for decision: Is plaintiff chargeable with one-third of the indebtedness of her deceased parent, Sallie Eason Par *118 ker, to the estate of her mother’s father, Joseph D. Eason? We think so. It is agreed between the litigants if plaintiff was chargeable with one-third of the indebtedness due by her mother to the estate of her father, Joseph D. Eason, the amount due her was $641.52, otherwise $1,381.61. In Paschal v. Paschal, 197 N. C., 40, citing authorities, it is said: “An advancement may be defined as a gift in prcesenli or provision made by a parent on behalf of a child for the purpose of advancing said child in life, and thus to enable him to anticipate his inheritance to the extent of such advancement. C. S., 1654, rule 2.” Grandchildren are bound to bring in the advancements to their parents, but ordinarily not gifts to themselves. This rule is restricted by the statute to gifts from a parent to a child, N. C. Code (Michie), sec. 138. Headen v. Headen, 42 N. C., 159 (161). If Joseph D. Eason had died intestate without a will, the plaintiff in this action, his granddaughter, before she could.inherit from her grandfather had to bring into hotchpot the advancements made to her mother. In the present case plaintiff takes under the will of her grandfather, and the will must be construed. At the date of the execution of the will by Joseph D. Eason his wife and nine children were living and two were dead. The two dead each left children. The mother of plaintiff left three children. Under the will he gave to his wife the house and lot on which they resided and a small farm. He gave to two of his sons, J. L. Eason and J. D. Eason, Jr., certain life insurance policies. “Fourth: During my life I have loaned and advanced certain sums of money to certain of my sons and daughters which I wish taken in consideration in a division of my property, and for that purpose I direct that all advances or loans so made by me to any of my sons and daughters be accounted for, with interest, the amount to be finally received by those to whom such advances or loans have been made to be reduced proportionately. “Fifth: All the balance, remainder and residue of the property that I may own at the time of my death, and which I have not hereinbefore specifically disposed of, I hereby bequeath and devise unto my wife, sons and daughters, and grandsons and granddaughters in the manner following and in the proportion set opposite their respective names, to wit”: Then he devises the balance into twelve parts: “(A) K. T. Eason a one-twelfth interest thereof, etc. . . . “(L) A one-twelfth interest thereof I give, bequeath, and devise unto J. B. Eason in and upon the following trust, to wit: In trust to have, hold, retain and safely keep to the use and benefit of Grace Parker, Doris Parker, and Edith Parker (the daughters of my deceased daughter, *119 Sallie Eason); and in tbis connection I direct said J. B. Eason, as snob trustee, in bis discretion and under tbe direction of tbe proper court, to expend and pay out said one-twelftb interest (one-tbird thereof to eacb) for tbe maintenance and education of said Grace Parker, Doris Parker, and Editb Parker during tbeir minority, tbe balance, if any, remaining of tbeir respective one-tbird of said one-twelftb interest to be paid by said trustee to said Grace Parker, Doris Parker, and Editb Parker, respectively, when tbey shall reach twenty-one years of age, but not before.” It would appear from Item 4 of tbe will, supra, “I direct that all advances or loans so made by me to any of my sons and daughters be accounted for,” etc., when construed with Item 5 as to tbe residue of tbe property, there should be an equal distribution after deducting advancements — like in case of intestacy — equality is equity. It seems that tbe intent of tbe testator was to divide tbe residue of tbe estate after advancements were deducted. It also seems that none of tbe others interested under tbe will make tbe contention that plaintiff does, but are satisfied. It is estimated that if plaintiff’s contention prevailed tbe children of Sallie Eason Parker would receive nearly 75 per cent more than any of tbe other children. For tbe reasons given, tbe judgment of tbe court below is Affirmed.