concluding clause in North Carolina

1910“In Allen v. Bowen, supra, the intention is declared to be to ‘sell all the right, title and claim’ of the grantor in the premises, and the concluding clause is as follows: ‘And we, Thomas A. Pritchett and Elizabeth, his wife, do, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever, the land to the said William Bowen, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns forever, clear of all encumbrances whatever.’ While this was an independent sentence, separated by a period from the preceding operative words, it was transposed and annexed to them, to give the deed effect

1885In Allen v. Bowen, supra, the intention is declared to be to “sell all the right, title and claim” of the grantor in the premises, and the concluding clause is as follows: “And we, Thomas A. Pritchett and Elizabeth his wife, do, for themselves, then-heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns forever, the land to the said William Bowen, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns forever, clear of all incumbrances whatever.” While this was an independent sentence, separated by a period from the preceding operative words, it was transposed and annexed to them, to give the deed effect as

1883Murphy v. Ray, 73 N. C., 588 ; Knight v. Killebrew, 86 N. C., 400 .

1881This is ruled in Murphy v. Ray, 73 N. C., 588 .

1962Wilcher v. Sharpe, 236 N.C. 308 , 72 S.E. 2d 662 ; Thomas & Howard Co. v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 109 , 84 S.E. 2d 337 .

1962Wilcher v. Sharpe, 236 N.C. 308 , 72 S.E. 2d 662 ; Thomas & Howard Co. v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 109 , 84 S.E. 2d 337 .

1962Wilcher v. Sharpe, 236 N.C. 308 , 72 S.E. 2d 662 ; Thomas & Howard Co. v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 109 , 84 S.E. 2d 337 .

1962Wilcher v. Sharpe, 236 N.C. 308 , 72 S.E. 2d 662 ; Thomas & Howard Co. v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 109 , 84 S.E. 2d 337 .

1910And it may be well here to note that'in the case of Allen v. Baskerville, 123 N. C., 126 , the word “heirs” did not appear in the instrument at all, and so the question we are now discussing was not presented. *229 Later, in Bunn v. Wells, 94 N. C., 67 , tbe Court held: “1.

1910And it may be well here to note that'in the case of Allen v. Baskerville, 123 N. C., 126 , the word “heirs” did not appear in the instrument at all, and so the question we are now discussing was not presented. *229 Later, in Bunn v. Wells, 94 N. C., 67 , tbe Court held: “1.

1910“In Allen v. Bowen, supra, the intention is declared to be to ‘sell all the right, title and claim’ of the grantor in the premises, and the concluding clause is as follows: ‘And we, Thomas A. Pritchett and Elizabeth, his wife, do, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever, the land to the said William Bowen, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns forever, clear of all encumbrances whatever.’ While this was an independent sentence, separated by a period from the preceding operative words, it was transposed and annexed to them, to give the deed effect

1885This concurrent power when not committed under the Constitution and laws of the United States, to the exclusive jurisdiction of their own Courts, would be shared by the Courts of the State, according to the measure of jurisdiction conferred upon them by the laws of the State, as decided in many cases, and upon an elaborate argument delivered by Mr. Justice Bradley in the opinion in Clafton v. Houseman, 93 U. S., 130 , in support of the right of an assiguee in bankruptcy to sue in a State Court for the recovery of part of the trust estate.

1884This was the form of allegation passed upon, when a similar objection was taken, in Palmer v. Bosher, 71 N. C., 291 , wherein RodMAN, J., uses these words: “But we think it (the affidavit) was not defective, because it stated that the defendants were removing, or were about to remove their property in the alternative.

1884The statute in force when' the bond sued on was given, and with-whose provisions, as stated in the complaint, we assume that it conforms, directs the condition to be that “ he shall account for and pay over according to law all moneys and effects which have come or may come into his hands by virtue or color of his office, and shall diligently preserve and take care of all books, records,, papers and property which have come, or may come into his possession by virtue or color of his office, and shall in all things faithfully perform the -duties of Ms office as they novo are or thereafter shall

1883Murphy v. Ray, 73 N. C., 588 ; Knight v. Killebrew, 86 N. C., 400 .