Doe Ex Dem. of David v. Roe
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Martin. Ejectment tried before Dantee, Judge, on the last Fall circuit. The lessors of the Plaintiff claimed by de-scentfrotn William Darlet, the Defendants as his devisees, and the only question was, whether the land of which lie died seised, passed by his will.
Read the full summary
From Martin. Ejectment tried before Dantee, Judge, on the last Fall circuit. The lessors of the Plaintiff claimed by de-scentfrotn William Darlet, the Defendants as his devisees, and the only question was, whether the land of which lie died seised, passed by his will. The case stated, that Darlet being seised of a large real, and possessed of a considerable personal estate, made and published his will, duly executed to pass land, which had been proved in the County Court, and was in the following words : “In the name of God amen. I William Darlet, of &c. being weak, &c. but &c. do hereby…
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, Chief Justice.
The only question in this case is, whether by the words “all my property & possessions, Consisting of both personal and perishable,”- given to the Defendants, with the further expressions, “ that they should pay my debts out of it, and the residue to be equally divided between them, to have and to hold to them, their heirs and assigns forever,” the lands of the testator passed. If these words were sufficient to pass them, a verdict and judgment should have been entered for the Defendants ; if not, the Plaintiffs as heirs at. law, are entitled to recover. That the words…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Foil v. Newsome.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Harris v. . MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1814