Council v. Pridgen
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from W. R. Allen, J., at tbe February Term, 1910, of Columbus. Civil action to recover land. It was admitted that tbe property in controversy had belonged to Mrs. Sarah E. Wooten, wife of Shade Wooten, Esq., and that in June, 1893, she made a deed, purporting to convey the property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from W. R. Allen, J., at tbe February Term, 1910, of Columbus. Civil action to recover land. It was admitted that tbe property in controversy had belonged to Mrs. Sarah E. Wooten, wife of Shade Wooten, Esq., and that in June, 1893, she made a deed, purporting to convey the property. This deed,. executed by herself alone was witnessed by E. W. Wooten, Jr., and was proved by the oath and examination of said witness and registered on such probate and that no privy examination of said Sarah E. Wooten was had. The name of Shade Wooten, the husband, did not appear in the body of the deed,…
1Dissent
Glare:, O. J.,
dissenting. The sole question presented in tbis case is whether a conveyance of land by a married woman who is a free-trader and has received the purchase money, the deed being endorsed with the full written assent of her husband, and thereafter duly probated and admitted to registration, is void against the heirs — who do not tender the return of the purchase money — because her privy examination is not shown to have been taken.
• If the deed is not valid, the heirs certainly should not be allowed to set it aside, and recover the land unless they should tender the return of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Burns v. . McGregorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Scott v. . BattleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Vann v. Edwards.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Hanover National Bank v. HowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Hall v. . WalkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.