general residuary clause (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

general residuary clause in North Carolina

7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1882–2012 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Ireland v. . Foustgreen
nc · 1857 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1925–2012
2 sentences

2012See Ireland v. Foust, 56 N.C. 498, 501 (1857)(“The presumption is that every one who makes a will intends to dispose of his whole estate, and one purpose of a general residuary clause is to dispose of such things as may have been forgotten or overlooked, or may be unknown.”).

1925“The presumption is that every one who makes a will intends to dispose of his whole estate, and one purpose of a general residuary clause is to dispose of such things as may have been forgotten or overlooked, or may be unknown.” Pearson, J., in Ireland v. Foust, 56 N. C., 498 .

12
Howell v. . Mehegangreen
nc · 1917 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985Misenheimer (Emphases added.) As this Court stated in Howell v. Mehegan, 174 N.C. 64, 67 , 93 S.E. 438, 440 (1917), “no contrary intent appearing [in the will], a void or lapsed legacy or devise passes under a general residuary clause . . . .” Isam Misenheimer did not indicate any intent that a lapsed share would pass otherwise than through the will’s residuary clause.

1985Misenheimer (Emphases added.) As this Court stated in Howell v. Mehegan, 174 N.C. 64, 67 , 93 S.E. 438, 440 (1917), “no contrary intent appearing [in the will], a void or lapsed legacy or devise passes under a general residuary clause . . . .” Isam Misenheimer did not indicate any intent that a lapsed share would pass otherwise than through the will’s residuary clause.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Reid v. . Neal green
nc · 1921
2 sentences

1929Reid v. Neal, 182 N. C., 192 , 108 S. E., 769 .

1929Reid v. Neal, 182 N. C., 192 , 108 S. E., 769 .

11929–1929
Given v. Hilton green
· 1877
2 sentences

1925For a helpful discussion of the subject, containing many arguments in support of the conclusion here reached, see opinion of Mr. Justice Strong in Given v. Hilton, 95 U. S., 591 , 24 L.

1925For a helpful discussion of the subject, containing many arguments in support of the conclusion here reached, see opinion of Mr. Justice Strong in Given v. Hilton, 95 U. S., 591 , 24 L.

11925–1925
Conyers v. Bowen neutral
ga · 1860
1 sentence

1917They are as clearly excluded from it as if the testator had specially excepted them by name.” The ease of Hughes v. Allen, 31 Ga., 382 , is a leading authority in which the testator bequeathed certain slaves, and the bequest was held to be void.

11917–1917
Kerr v. . Dougherty green
ny · 1880
1 sentence

1908The same doctrine, as we have stated, is recognized in the learned and exhaustive opinion of the Court in Kerr v. Dougherty, 79 N. Y., 327 , where it is said: “The general rule is that in a will of personal property the general residuary clause carries whatever is not otherwise legally disposed of.

11908–1908
Sholl v. Sholl neutral
nysupct · 1849
1 sentence

1882In the case of Sholl v. Sholl, 5 Barb., 312 , cited in 2 Redfield on Wills, 133, to which reference was made by counsel, the supreme court of New York held, that a specific bequest of one’s indebtedness to the testator was not such a legacy as to entitle the debtor to share with other legatees in a contingent residuary fund.

11882–1882

Where else courts name it

NY 39 (1870–1964) PA 14 (1934–2020) OH 14 (1862–1980) TX 13 (1930–2024) IL 12 (1899–1989) MA 12 (1927–2017) CA 11 (1910–2012) CT 11 (1912–1992) VA 9 (1890–1989) SC 7 (1946–1996) NC 7 (1882–2012) DE 6 (1921–2016) MI 4 (1947–2026) NJ 4 (1943–1974) AR 3 (1912–1994) TN 3 (1938–2026) RI 3 (1895–1967) NV 2 (2022–2022) MD 2 (1980–2007) ME 2 (1865–1968) CO 2 (1927–1951) OR 2 (1937–1973) MO 2 (1909–1954) WY 2 (1977–2005) IN 2 (1934–1956) WI 2 (1932–1942) NE 2 (1956–2021)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check