TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Den Ex D. Motley v. Whitemore

Den Ex Dem. Joel F. Motley v. . Nancy Whitemore.

Den Ex D. Motley v. Whitemore, 19 N.C. 537 (1837)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 5, 1837
Judges
Gaston
Citations
19 N.C. 537
Headnotes
Inlands conveyed to husband and wife, they have not a joint estate, but hold, by entireties; and upon the death of either of them, the whole estate continues in the survivor, notwithstanding the act of 1784, (see 1 Rev. Stat. c. 43, s. 2,j for abolishing the right of survivorship.
Summary
This was an action of ejectment, in which the following facts were submitted to his Honor Judge Saunbers, at Caswell, on the last Circuit. The plaintiff’s lessors claimed title to the land in controversy, by virtue of a judgment, execution, and sheriff’s deed; and produced the records of two judgments, rendered in Caswell County Court, in favour of himself and one Nannally, at July Term, 1833, against the administrators of Louis White-more, deceased. It appeared, that the administrator, among other things, had relied on the plea of fully administered, which had been found for him; and judgments had been signed for the plaintiff’s demands. Writs of scire facias had been sued out thereon against the heirs at law of the said Lewis Whitemore, and judgment rendered upon the same at October Term, 1835, upon which writs of venditioni exponas were issued; and at January Term, 1836, the land was sold, and a deed executed therefor by the sheriff to the plaintiff. The defendant was the widow of Whitemore, and was in possession of the land sued for; and she claimed to be sole seized thereof by devise from one John Hudnall, her father, in the following words, to wit: “ I give to Lewis Whitemore and his wife, the tract of land whereon I now live.” The defendant was the wife referred to in the devise; and the land devised was admitted to be the same mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration. His Honor, upon these facts, being of opinion with the' defendant, a verdict of not guilty was entered in pursuance an agreement between the parties to that effect; and the plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gaston

Gaston, Judge.

We entirely approve of the opinion expressed by his Honor below. When lands are conveyed to husband and wife, they have not a joint estate, but they hold by entireties. Being in law but one person, they have each the whole estate as one person; and on the death of either of them, the whole estate continues in the survivor. This was settled, at least as far back as the reign of Edward the 3rd, as appears from the case on the petition of John Hawkins, as the heir of Joan Ocle, quoted by Lord Coke, 1 Inst. 187 a. (See Buck v. Andrews, 2 Vern. 120.

Doe on dem. Freestone v. Parratt, 5 Term Rep. 652.) Our act of 1784, (see 1 Rev. Stat.

c. 43, sec. 2,) declaring, that in estates held in joint-tenancy, “ the part or share” of the person first dying shall not go to the survivor, but to the heirs or assignees respectively of the tenant so dying, has no application to a case of this kind. The husband and wife were not joint-tenants, nor had either any share to go to the survivor, or to the heir or assignee of the one dying first.

The judgment is to be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 23 cases

View all citing references →
1864–1865: 11896–1897: 11902–1903: 11910–1911: 11914–1915: 21916–1917: 31918–1919: 21922–1923: 21924–1925: 11930–1931: 11946–1947: 11948–1949: 11956–1957: 21964–1965: 11974–1975: 11980–1981: 11990–1991: 118642026peak 1916 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Woolard v. Smith94 S.E.2d 466 (N.C. 1956)
  2. Woodford v. Higly60 N.C. 234 (1864)
  3. Davis v. Bass124 S.E. 566 (N.C. 1924)
  4. North Carolina Board of Architecture v. Lee142 S.E.2d 643 (N.C. 1965)
  5. McKinnon, Currie & Co. v. Caulk83 S.E. 559 (N.C. 1914)
  6. Stamper v. Stamper28 S.E. 20 (N.C. 1897)

Most recent

  1. Wilkinson v. United States770 F. Supp. 1085 (W.D.N.C. 1991)
  2. In re Foreclosure of Deed of Trust Recorded in Book 911272 S.E.2d 893 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)
  3. Strange v. Sink218 S.E.2d 196 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)
  4. North Carolina Board of Architecture v. Lee142 S.E.2d 643 (N.C. 1965)
  5. Matheson v. American Trust Company100 S.E.2d 77 (N.C. 1957)
  6. Woolard v. Smith94 S.E.2d 466 (N.C. 1956)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list