Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Rea v. Rea

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 9, 1911Published

Appeal by defendant from Justice, J., at Spring Term, 1911, of Chowan. Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Ghief Justice Gla/rk.

1ConcurrenceWalker, J.

The transaction in this case was a gift, which excludes the idea of any contract between the husband and wife, and for this reason there is no law forbidding it, in substance or in form. If it had been an executed contract of sale, I think, in that form, it also would have been valid; and in neither case does Revisal, see. 2107, apply. The law in regard to a married woman’s dealings with reference to her separate property, up to its present stage of development, I think, may be stated thus:

1. She may will her property without the consent of her husband, and as if she were a feme sole (Const.,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kearney v. . VannSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. Hallyburton v. Slagle.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. Vann v. Edwards.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  4. McNeill v. Durham & Charlotte RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
  5. Watts v. Griffin.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API