# Dull v. Dull

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · October 11, 1950 · 232 N.C. 482

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1314689

## Case

- **Full name:** SHUFORD DULL, EARLY DULL, NEWTON DULL, CLYDE DULL, PAUL DULL, HAROLD DULL, ETHEL YARBOROUGH, ERLINE BROWN, and EMILY BELL DULL, Widow of ELI DULL, Deceased, v. W. H. DULL and Wife, GRACIE MAE DULL
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 11, 1950
- **Citations:** 232 N.C. 482; 61 S.E.2d 255; 1950 N.C. LEXIS 546
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by DeNNy
- **Judges:** DeNNy
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1314689

## Opinion text

DeNNy, J.
In the interpretation of a deed, the intention of the grantor must be gathered from the four corners of the instrument and every part thereof given effect, unless it contains conflicting provisions which are irreconcilable, or a provision which is contrary to public policy or runs counter to some rule of law.
Ellis v. Barnes,
231 N.C. 543 , 57 S.E. 2d 772 ;
Edgerton v. Harrison,
230 N.C. 158 , 52 S.E. 2d 357 ;
Boyd v. Campbell,
192 N.C. 398 , 135 S.E. 121 ;
Willis v. Trust Co.,
183 N.C. 267 , 111 S.E. 163 ;
Springs v. Hopkins,
171 N.C. 486 , 88 S.E. 774 .
*484
The plaintiffs are relying upon the case of
Roberson v. Griffin,
185 N.C. 38 , 115 S.E. 824 , for an affirmance of the judgment entered below. While the defendants are relying upon
Turner v. Turner,
195 N.C. 371 , 142 S.E. 224 , and
Williams v. Williams,
175 N.C. 160 , 95 S.E. 157 , for a reversal.
We think the grantor, in using the words “bodily heirs” in the premises in connection with the description of the grantees, had in mind the children of William I. Dull and his wife Nancy M. Dull. The granting clause in a deed, however, and not the premises, ordinarily controls whenever it is repugnant to preceding or succeeding recitals.
Ingram v. Easley,
227 N.C. 442 , 42 S.E. 2d 624 ;
Maberry v. Grimsley,
208 N.C. 64 , 179 S.E. 7 ; 16 Am. Jur. 575 .
In the instant case, the granting clause conveys the property described to William I. Dull and wife Nancy M. Dull, during their natural lives or during the widowhood of Nancy M. Dull, then to their bodily heirs equally, including the two illegitimate children theretofore named.
In our opinion the grantor, in using the words “bodily heirs” in the granting clause, did so as a
"descriptio personarum,”
and that the estate granted was for the natural lives of William I. Dull and wife, Nancy M. Dull, or during the widowhood of Nancy M. Dull, and then to the children born of the first marriage, including the two named illegitimate children.
In this connection it should he noted that Nancy M. Dull was conveyed only an estate for life or during her widowhood. Therefore, it would seem the words “their children” were used in an exclusive sense, meaning the children of William I. Dull and his then present wife, Nancy M. Dull, including the two illegitimate children born to them before marriage.
This view is supported by the decisions in
Turner v. Turner, supra,
and
Williams v. Williams, supra.
And, as stated in the
Turner case,
the principles announced in
Roberson v. Griffin, supra,
are likewise not applicable to the facts in this case.
The judgment below is
Reversed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1314689. Public record. Not legal advice.