Mills v. . Harris
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Conversion— Will — Election—Descent— Conveyance — Administration. This was a civil ACTION, tried at the September Term, 1889, of Ruti-iekeord Superior Court, before Boykin, J, brought by the plaintiff executrix for construction of a will.
Read the full summary
Conversion— Will — Election—Descent— Conveyance — Administration. This was a civil ACTION, tried at the September Term, 1889, of Ruti-iekeord Superior Court, before Boykin, J, brought by the plaintiff executrix for construction of a will. L. A. Mills died on the 22d day of October, 1882, leaving a last will and testament, which was duly admitted to probate, and by said will he appointed Mrs. Jane Mills, the plaintiff, his wife; L. A. Mills, Jr , his son, and his daughter, Mary Jane Harris, his executors, all of whom were duly qualified as such, and letters testamentary were issued to them,…
1Opinion of the Court
Shepherd, J.:
The contention of J. W. Harris, as admin-trator of his wife, is based entirely upon the proposition that the “upper place” was converted into personal property, either by the terms of the will or by the oral contract to sell the same during the life of his intestate.
For the first position he relies upon the doctrine of equitable conversion, insisting, that such conversion occurred at the death of the testator. The authorities cited by him fully establish the proposition that where land is directed to be sold and the proceeds divided, the land, at the death of the testator, is…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Elmore v. AustinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Heider v. DietzOregon Supreme Court · 1963
- Scott v. JordanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Birckner v. TilchCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1941
- Lee v. Baird.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.