Every contingent limitation in any deed or will, made to depend upon the dying of any person without heir or heirs of the body, or without issue or issues of the body, or without children, or offspring, or descendant, or other relative, shall be held and interpreted a limitation to take effect when such person dies not having such heir, or issue, or child, or offspring, or descendant, or other relative (as the case may be) living at the time of his death, or born to him within 10 lunar months thereafter, unless the intention of such limitation be otherwise, and expressly and plainly declared in the face of the deed or will creating it: Provided, that the rule of construction contained in this section shall not extend to any deed or will made and executed before the fifteenth of January, 1828. (1827, c. 7; R.C., c. 43, s. 3; Code, s. 1327; Rev., s. 1581; C.S., s. 1737.)
Notes of Decisions
McCarley v. McCarley, 221 S.E.2d 490 (N.C. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Shuford, North Carolina Civil Practice and Procedure § 41-4 (1975). In this case plaintiff filed a verified complaint alleging residency of both parties, marriage, one year's separation, names, ages and custody of the children born of the marriage, and prayed for absolute…”
Lide v. Mears, 56 S.E.2d 404 (N.C. 1949).
“The first item of the codicil conferred upon Lucile Wells Marr and Cornelia Wells Marlette, respectively, a remainder in fee in one undivided half of the store property, defeasible as to each upon her dying without issue living at the time of her death, and in case either died…”
Danielson v. Cummings, 265 S.E.2d 161 (N.C. 1980).
“Shuford, North Carolina Civil Practice and Procedure § 41-4 (1975). McCarley v. McCarley, 289 N.”
Little v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 113 S.E.2d 689 (N.C. 1960).
“” Testator's brother, Robert Grubb, was given a twenty per cent share of income and corpus on the same terms.”
Banner v. Banner, 358 S.E.2d 110 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).
“Civil Practice and Procedure § 41-4 (2d ed. 1981). In addition, while the rule requires “filing a notice of dismissal,” such notice may also be given orally in open court.”
Moore v. Hunter, 265 S.E.2d 884 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “G.S. 41-4: “Every contingent limitation of any .”
Elmore v. Austin, 59 S.E.2d 205 (N.C. 1950).
“issue . . . living at the time of his death .”
Lutz v. Lutz, 399 S.E.2d 385 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
“Because the defendant did not assert an affirmative right to relief prior to the judgment of divorce, the plaintiff was entitled to take a voluntary dismissal of his claim for equitable distribution pursuant to N.”
House v. House, 56 S.E.2d 695 (N.C. 1949).
· cites it 4× “aschal, wife of Edward Paschal, and Otelia Sunshine Ferrell, wife of Walter Ferrell, should they survive their mother, tbe life tenant; and, that it was only in tbe event of tbe death of either one or more of tbe designated daughters without issue, prior to tbe death of tbe life…”
Lowe v. Bryant, 286 S.E.2d 652 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).
“Civil Practice and Procedure § 41-4 (2d ed. 1981); Danielson v. Cummings, 300 N.”
White v. Alexander, 224 S.E.2d 617 (N.C. 1976).
“We are advertent to language in some of our cases that because of G.S. 41-4: “To determine the effectiveness of the limitation over the roll must be called as of the death of the first taker,” Turpin v.”
Turpin v. . Jarrett, 37 S.E.2d 124 (N.C. 1946).
“7, Public Laws 1827, now G. S., 41-4; Patterson v. McCormick, 177 N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.