Bell v. . Dozier
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Currituck. This was an action of Waste, tried before Nash Judge, at the Spring term, 1826, of the Court below, when a verdict was taken and damages assessed for the Plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court as to the right of the Plaintiffs to sustain the action, upon the following case.
Read the full summary
From Currituck. This was an action of Waste, tried before Nash Judge, at the Spring term, 1826, of the Court below, when a verdict was taken and damages assessed for the Plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court as to the right of the Plaintiffs to sustain the action, upon the following case. In 1812, Peter Barnard died intestate, seised of the lands on which the waste was committed, leaving two children, Elizabeth and Jesse, and a widow; and afterwards in the same* year, JElizabeth died intestate, and without issue. The widow had. dower assigned her in this land, and in 1813,…
1Opinion of the Court
Henderson, Judge.
Peter Barnard, the first purchaser of the lands in question, died seised thereof in the year 1812, intestate, leaving two children, Elizabeth and Jesse, and a widow, the mother of Jesse, I presume, although it is not so stated in the case. The locus in quo was assigned to the widow, as her dower. Elizabeth died intestate, without issue, in the same year. In the year 1813, the widow married Dozier, one of the Defendants; and in 1814, had a child, which is still alive. The Plaintiffs are the maternal half-brothers and sisters of Peter Barnard, and the nearest of kin to Jesse,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Johnson v. . WhildenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Poisson v. . PettawaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Ex Parte BarefootSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Severt v. . LyallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Paul v. . CarterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910