The ruling of his Honor is predicated upon the idea that the action is wholly upon the paper-writing set out in the second paragraph of the complaint, and that there is no payee or obligee named therein, and this requires an examination and construction of the writing.
“The object of courts in the construction of a paper-writing is to find out what the parties to it intended, and whether apt language has been used to give effect to the intention” (Hornthal v. Howcott, 154 N. C., 229), and “to arrive at the intent *45of the parties, it is proper to look at the entire instrument, the condition of the parties, and the purpose for which it was entered into.” Rhyne v. Rhyne, 151 N. C., 403.
If it is susceptible of two meanings, one of which will render it valid and the other invalid, or if one is reasonable and the other unreasonable, the construction will be adopted which will give life and force to the writing.
The words used are generally construed most strongly against the party using them, and in cases of doubt, the construction adopted by the parties will have weight. Clark Cont., p. 402.
Applying these principles to the facts alleged, we find that the plaintiff and her husband, who has since died, two old people, conveyed their land in 1907 to the defendant, their-son, for the consideration that he would support them during their lives, and that about the same time the said son and his wife executed the paper-writing; that the writing was probated and registered, and thereafter the plaintiff resided with the defendants; that the defendants provided support for a time, but failed to do so for sixteen months.
It was evidently the intention of the defendants to make the promise to the plaintiff and her husband, the parties have recognized it as a subsisting obligation, and to adopt any other construction would convict the defendant of practicing a fraud on his father and mother by obtaining their land upon a promise of support, and then evading performance because he had failed to write the paper correctly.
The principle in the case of Leach v. Fleming, 85 N. C., 449, is decisive of this. The Court there says: “The first and principal objection directed against the validity of the bond is the alleged absence of the name of an obligee. The obligation assumed by the defendant is that he will be responsible for the amount due on the note, identifying it by an accurate description of its terms, 'if the said Hyams and Dale (the debtors) fail to pay said note (amounting to $760) at maturity.’ With whom does he covenant when he says 'I pledge myself to be responsible for the same’? Of course, it is with the person to whom the note to be paid is payable.”
*46In the ease at bar the defendant binds himself to the care and support of the plaintiff and her husband, and his obligation must be to those named who are to be benefited.
We are also of opinion that a cause of action is stated if the second paragraph be stricken from the complaint, as without it there is an allegation of a promise to support, based on a valuable consideration, and of a breach of the promise.
Reversed.
DEFENDANT’S APPEAL.
After the judgment was rendered in the Superior Court and before the appeal was docketed in this Court, the plaintiff died, and her administrator was made a party plaintiff by the clerk, and this was approved by the judge, and defendant excepted and appealed.
The action did not abate by the death of the plaintiff, and her administrator will be entitled to recover such amount for support as was due at her death.
The clerk had authority under Revisal, sec. 417, to make the administrator a party, or he could have been made a party in this Court under Rule 46 of the Supreme Court.
Affirmed.