Caudle v. . Caudle
This text of 97 S.E. 472 (Caudle v. . Caudle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Plaintiff is tbe widow and defendants are tbe heirs at law of Charles A. Caudle, who died seized and possessed of only one piece of real estate, a bouse and lot, which was bis dwelling at time of bis *538 death. Plaintiff claims that the whole should be set apart to her as dower. The contention cannot be sustained. The dower of a widow, of common right, never did extend to more than a third part of the-lands and tenements of her husband, and our Legislature has never enlarged the right so as to comprehend more than a third.
Section 3084 of the Revisal provides: “That every married woman,, upon the death of her husband, shall be entitled to an estate for life in one-third in value of all lands, etc., of her deceased husband, in which third part shall be included the dwelling-house in which her husband usually resided.” This is substantially the statute law as contained in the Code, sec. 2103. Revised Code, ch. 118, sec. 3, and Revised Statutes, ch. 121, sec. 3.
There is no statute that authorizes the allotment of more than a third' part of the real estate of the husband. Where such estate consists solely of the dwelling-house it follows that only a third in value of that can be allotted. Such is the law as declared in Stiver v. Cawthorn, 20 N. C., 645, and recognized in Campbell v. White, 95 N. C., 494.
In this last case, referring to an allotment of homestead, Chief Justice Smith says: “But it is not improper for us to say that we do not see-why a portion of the house, containing rooms of sufficient value, may not be set apart as an allotment of dower.”
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
97 S.E. 472, 176 N.C. 537, 1918 N.C. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caudle-v-caudle-nc-1918.