Smithdeal v. . Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Paetitioh of land, before Cloud, J., at Fall term 1869, of Rowah Court. The plaintiffs alleged that they were tenants in common ■with the defendant, of the land in question, and asked judgment for a partition.
Read the full summary
Paetitioh of land, before Cloud, J., at Fall term 1869, of Rowah Court. The plaintiffs alleged that they were tenants in common ■with the defendant, of the land in question, and asked judgment for a partition. The defendant answered, admitting a tenancy in common in which he was entitled to two-thirds, and the feme plaintiff to one-third only: claiming that heretofore a third person was entitled in equal proportions with the feme plaintiff and himself, and that upon such person’s death, he left his share, by will, to the defendant. The plaintiffs replied, claiming an equal share with the…
1Opinion of the CourtPeabson, C. J.
The position that land can pass by a nuncupative will, cannot be supported.
At common law, land could not be devised. Statute 32 Hen. YIII, allows any person having land held by military tenure, to devise two-thirds thereof, and any person having-land held by socage tenure, to devise the whole, provided the devise be made in writing, signed by the testator. By statute 12 Oar. II, all land held by military tenure, is converted into land held by free and common socage, and the legal effect is to make all land, except copy-hold, devisable by will in writing, signed by the testator. Soon after the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Lewis v. Heirs of AylottTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Irwin v. RogersWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- Pierce v. PierceIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Sadler v. SadlerMississippi Supreme Court · 1882
- In re Davis's WillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.