Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Susan Felton v. . William L. Elliott

66 N.C. 195

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1872-01-05
Topic
general

Pearson, C. J. The judgment in the Court below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed for three reasons. I. The summons issued 5th May, 1871, and demands dower under the Act ratified 2d March, 1867, which act is repealed by Act 1868-69, (page 217.) The case cannot fall under the last act concerning dower, for, the husband is still alive, II.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Susan Felton v. . William L. Elliott. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
SUSAN FELTONv. WILLIAM L. ELLIOTT,66 N.C. 195(1872)
SUSAN FELTONvs. WILLIAM L. ELLIOTT,et al.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(January Term, 1872.)
1. A claim for dower, under the Act of 1867, set up in 1872, the husband being still alive, cannot be sustained.

2. A demand for dower is a special proceeding returnable before the Clerk.

3. On appeal to this Court, an undertaking of appeal, must be sent up with the transcript.
The case ofWebber vs. Taylor at this term, cited and approved.
This was an appeal from the decision of His Honor Judge Pool, rendered at Fall Term 1871, of Perquimans Superior Court.
In 1866 the defendants recovered a judgment against Wm. Felton, the present husband of the plaintiff; execution issued thereon and a levy was made on the land in question; this execution was returned and writs ofven.ex. were regularly issued and kept up until a sale thereunder; the land was sold, it does not appear clearly from the record, when, but it is to be inferred, after the passage of the Act of 1866-'67, chap. 54, concerning dower; the husband of the plaintiff having given consent thereto in writing; the defendants purchased andPage 196went into possession and refused to lay off the plaintiff "one-third" of the land.

The plaintiff commenced her action 5th May, 1871, by a summons for relief, returnable to term time. His Honor, being of opinion with the defendants, gave judgment accordingly, and the plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff suedin forma pauperisand on certificate of counsel, c., His Honor allowed her to appeal without giving the usual undertaking for costs.
Ovide Dupreefor the appellant.Gilliamfor the appellee.
PEARSON, C.J.
The judgment in the Court below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed for three reasons.

I. The summons issued 5th May, 1871, and demands dower under the Act ratified 2d March, 1867, which act is repealed by Act 1868-69, (page 217.) The case cannot fall under the last act concerning dower, for, the husband is still alive.

II. The proceeding is commenced by summons returnable before the Judge in term time, whereas, being a "special proceeding" for dower, it ought to have been made returnable, before the Clerk.

III. The appeal is allowed without a prosecution bond, the plaintiff being allowed to suein forma pauperis. C. C. P. sec. 303. "to render an appeal, effectual for any purpose, a written undertaking must be executed on the part of the appellant, c." SeeWebber vs. Taylor, at this term.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Appeal dismissed.Page 197