Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Falls v. . Torrance

9 N.C. 490

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1823-06-05
Topic
general

IIah;, Jndgc, delivered the Court’s opinion. This case very much resembles that of Tate v. Green lee’s adm’r, decided this term. It is a motion to dismiss the bill — thirty-five years or thereabouts, having elapsed from the death of Gilbraith Falls, Complainants’ father, until the time of filing it. It appears that at the time of Gilbraith Falls’ death, that the Complainants were infants ; that some of them, (his daughters) married in their infancy ; that their husbands are yet living.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Falls v. . Torrance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
FALLSv. TORRANCE,9 N.C. 490(1823)
FALLS AND OTHERS v. TORRANCE. — From Iredell.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
June Term, 1823.
Motion to dismiss a bill filed against an administrator for an account, after a lapse of thirty-seven years, disallowed because complainants were infants at the time of intestate's death; some of them married during infancy, and were yetfemes covert;and the defendant, moreover, had induced them by his representations to believe he would settle without suit.Page 277
THE bill, which was filed in 1817, set forth that one Gilbraith Falls died in June, 1780, intestate, and that administration on his estate was granted in 1781 to his widow, who in 1784 married the defendant; that the complainants were the children of Gilbraith Falls, and at the time of his death were infants; that some of them (the daughters) married in infancy, and were yetfemes covert;that among other property of their deceased parent taken into possession by his administratrix was a negro woman, Flora, now the mother of several children, and that distribution of this property had never been made among complainants. They assigned as a reason for not making earlier claim that Torrance, the husband of the administratrix, by his declarations induced a belief that he did not contest complainants' right to the property, but declared that they should be distributed among the next of kin of Gilbraith Falls.

The bill prayed that Torrance might be compelled to deliver up the property for distribution, and account for the intermediate value of the labor of Flora and her children.
Gaston and Wilson moved to dismiss.Seawell and Mordecai contra. (491)
HALL, J.
This case very much resembles that ofTate v. Greenlee, ante, 486.

It is a motion to dismiss the bill, thirty-five years or thereabouts having elapsed from the death of Gilbraith Falls, complainant's father, until the time of filing it. It appears that at the time of Gilbraith Falls' death that the complainants were infants; that some of them (his daughters) married in their infancy; that their husbands are yet living. They further state that a negro woman by the name of Flora, now the mother of several children, was part of the estate of their father; that division was never made of her amongst the distributees; and that the reason why they did not bring suit sooner was that they had reason to believe that Hugh Torrance, who had married their mother, who was the administratrix of their father's estate, would have directed the said negroes to be delivered up to them at his death, so that the bill is not brought for a general settlement only, but for a division of the negroes thus pointed out. For these reasons we think the bill ought not to be dismissed.

PER CURIAM. Motion to dismiss denied.Cited: S. c.,11 N.C. 413;Petty v. Harmon,16 N.C. 494;S. v.McGowen,37 N.C. 17;Shearin v. Eaton, ib., 284;Grant v. Hughes.94 N.C. 237.Page 278

(492)