Hoggard v. Jordan.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ActioN by John W. Hoggard, Administrator of Mary 0. Jordan, against C. E. Jordan and others, beard by Judge B. B. Peebles and a jury, at the September Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of Beetie. This was a petition by the administrator of Mary 0. Jordan, deceased, to sell land for the purpose of making assets with which to pay debts.
Read the full summary
ActioN by John W. Hoggard, Administrator of Mary 0. Jordan, against C. E. Jordan and others, beard by Judge B. B. Peebles and a jury, at the September Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of Beetie. This was a petition by the administrator of Mary 0. Jordan, deceased, to sell land for the purpose of making assets with which to pay debts. The defendants are the devisees of Jesse N. Jordan, and heirs at law of his widow, Mary C. The petitioner alleged that his intestate, Mary C., died seized of the lands described in the petition. This was denied by defendants. The cause was, upon issue thus…
1ConcurrenceWalker, J.
Nobles, 136 N. C., 99. Here there was a substantial benefit conferred by the will, which forced the plaintiffs intestate to choose between the acceptance of that,benefit and the retention of the property, already her own, which is attempted to be disposed of by the same instrument. There was no such benefit received under the will construed in Tripp v. Nobles. It would seem but just to require that the benefit bestowed should be a substantial one, in order to put the donee to an election, and that it should not consist merely of property which he would have received under the law, if the will…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- In re the Estate of GwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Tripp v. Nobles.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Corriell v. HamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
- In re FreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Tyler v. WheelerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.