Pettijohn v. . Beasley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a hule to show cause why the report and confirmation thereof, of an allowance to a widow for her year’s support, should not be set aside, as irregular and void.
Read the full summary
This was a hule to show cause why the report and confirmation thereof, of an allowance to a widow for her year’s support, should not be set aside, as irregular and void. Harriet Beasley, the widow of Valentine Beasley, filed her petition at March Term, 1834, of Chowan County Court, in which she stated, that her husband had died, leaving a will, to which she had entered her dissent of record at that term; and further, that said will had been proven at the preceding November Term of said Court, by Lemuel M. Pettijohn. The petition prayed, that commissioners might be appointed, to allot to her…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaston, Judge.
— In the case of Gillespie v. Hymans, 4 Dev. Rep. 119, it was determined, that a widow whose husband died intestate, could not claim a year’s provision out of his estate, unless her petition was filed at the term when administration was granted. The Court left open the question, at what time a widow who dissents from her husband’s will, and who, it is declared by our act of 1827, ch. 13, “ shall be entitled to, and shall recover out of the estate of her husband, one year’s provision, in the sams manner that she would have done, if her husband had died intestate,” is bound to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Collins v. . CollinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1816
- Whitley v. . BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1822