Cunningham v. . Cunningham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion
The intention of the testator seems plainly to have (521) been to transfer the beneficial interest in the lands to Rachel and her children; and were there no legal impediments to the effecting of such an object, I should think the words made use of equivalent to an express devise of the land. But it is indispensable to the validity of every devise that there be a devisee appointed who is competent to take. Slaves have not that competence; for a civil incapacity results from the nature and condition of slavery. And it would be a solecism that the law should sanction or permit the acquisition…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pugh v. . GrantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Haywood v. . CravenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1816
- Sorrey v. . BrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1835
- Kirkpatrick v. . RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1848
- Huckaby v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1822
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.