Bryant v. . Scott
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a bill filed by the administrator cum testa-mento,an nexo of James Britt, Senr., to obtain the advice of the Court of Equity, as to the mode of distributing the residue of the estate of his testator, under the 14th clause of his will, which was as follows, to wit: “Item 14th.
Read the full summary
This was a bill filed by the administrator cum testa-mento,an nexo of James Britt, Senr., to obtain the advice of the Court of Equity, as to the mode of distributing the residue of the estate of his testator, under the 14th clause of his will, which was as follows, to wit: “Item 14th. It is my will, after all debts against my estate are paid, that the residue of my estate not herein disposed of, shall be sold by my executors, at public sale, to the highest bidder, upon a credit of six months, and the proceeds to be equally divided among the persons hereafter named, viz. Edith Bryant, Margaret…
1Opinion of the Court
Ruffin, Chief Justice.
The question made in this case has not been argued ; but we do not postpone the decision on that account, as we think no argument could raise a doubt upon it. All the cases upon the subject were looked into, and much considered by the Court in the recent case of Ward v. Stowe, 2 Dev. Eq. Ca. 509; and they clearly establish the correctness of the decree made by his Honor. The only difficulty in that case arose out of the word heirs, there used as the description of the donees of a residue, in which real and personal estates were complicated. We were finally of opinion,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Coppedge v. CoppedgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Burton v. . CahillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Culp v. . LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Wooten v. . OutlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Ex Parte BrogdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.