Smith v. . Barham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The plaintiffs were some of the legatees in remainder, of the residue bequeathed in the will of John Barham, deceased, and filed their bill against the executors, atul the other residuary legatees, for an account and satisfaction.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs were some of the legatees in remainder, of the residue bequeathed in the will of John Barham, deceased, and filed their bill against the executors, atul the other residuary legatees, for an account and satisfaction. By an original and amended hill, it was charged that the testators died in September 18¿5, and directed his debts to be paid out of such parts of his estate as he did not specifically dispose of thereby, and “the residue ** with all the lands lie should die possessed of, he lent u to his wife Mart/ during her life,” repeating, that by the term “ residue,” he meant…
1Opinion of the Court
HUITIN, Chief-Justice
After stating the pleadings and report as above, proceeded:
The crops growing on the land, at the time of the testator’s.idcath, go to the executor as against the heir,but as between the executor and the devisee,the latter is entitled tjieiD, Thd devisee takes the land by the intention of the testator, with every thing on it, for as the devise car-vies the land against the heir, so it does the crop against ¿¡1C executor.! The rule is so strong, that if the devise be for life with remainder over, anil the first taker die before severance of the crop growing at the death of…
2Cited by13 opinions
- In Re the Administration of the Estate of KnowlesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Williard v. . WeavilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Burwell v. Raleigh Banking & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Security Savings Bank v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- Haywood v. WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.