Rayner Ex Rel. Freeman v. Watford
Supreme Court of North Carolina
>From Bertie. Debt upon an administration bond, executed by the ancestor of the Defendants, as surety of Edward C. Outlaw, upon his taking out letters of administration on the estate of John Freeman, the father of the relator. The breach assigned was the non-payment of the distributive share of the intestate’s estate, to which the relator was entitled.
Read the full summary
>From Bertie. Debt upon an administration bond, executed by the ancestor of the Defendants, as surety of Edward C. Outlaw, upon his taking out letters of administration on the estate of John Freeman, the father of the relator. The breach assigned was the non-payment of the distributive share of the intestate’s estate, to which the relator was entitled. After oyer of the condition which was in the common form, the Defendants pleaded, among other pleas, the act of 1715 (Rero. c. 10, s. 7) whereby claims, not mad* against the estate of a deceased debtor within seven years after his death, are…
1Opinion of the Court
Ruffin, Judge.
The act of 1715, {Rev. c. 10, s. 7,) is in terms an unqualified bar, without saving or exception in favor of any incapacity or case whatsoever. It seems to have been designed to be, emphatically, a statute of repose in favor of dead men’s estates, without a single, exception. It is founded upon thé pblicy, that the few instances of private injustice arising under it had better be tolerated, than that heirs, who had improved their inheritances, should lose them, and executors and administrators be subjected to debts, after the lapse of so' long a period from the debtors death. If…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Daniel v. . GrizzardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- McLellan v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1804