Den on Demise of the University of North Carolina v. Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Den on Demise of the University of North Carolina v. Brown

23 N.C. 387

DecidedJune 5, 1841

StatusPublished

This text of 23 N.C. 387 (Den on Demise of the University of North Carolina v. Brown) 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.

Bluebook

Den on Demise of the University of North Carolina v. Brown, 23 N.C. 387 (N.C. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

Daniel, J.

Mrs. Cocke acquired the land by devise ; she is therefore to be considered as the first purchaser. On her death, the inheritance descended to her only child, Elizabeth. On the death of Elizabeth, it descended to her only child, Margaret, who died intestate and without issue, leaving a brother and two sisters (by the name of Peter) of the half blood ex parte paterna. The question submitted was, whether the land had escheated to the University. It is enacted by Rule 5th in the Canons of Descent, Rev. iSt. c. 38, that “ on failure of lineal descendants, where the inheritance lias not been transmitted by descent or derived from an ancestor (as mentioned in the 4th rule,) or where, if so transmitted or derived, the blood of such ancestor is extinct, the inheritance shall descend to the next collateral relations of the person last seized, whether of the paternal or maternal line.” In this case, the land had been transmitted by descent from an ancestor to Margaret, the person last seized ; but the blood of Mrs. Cocke, the ancestor, has become extinct. On this event happening, the inheritance descended, according to the aforesaid rule, to the next collateral relations of the paternal line of Margaret, the person last seized. These persons are her brother and sisters of the half blood, the children of her father, John Peter.

We are of the opinion that the lands mentioned did not escheat. The judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Daniel, J.

Mrs. Cocke acquired the land by devise ; she is therefore to be considered as the first purchaser. On her death, the inheritance descended to her only child, Elizabeth. On the death of Elizabeth, it descended to her only child, Margaret, who died intestate and without issue, leaving a brother and two sisters (by the name of Peter) of the half blood ex parte paterna. The question submitted was, whether the land had escheated to the University. It is enacted by Rule 5th in the Canons of Descent, Rev. iSt. c. 38, that “ on failure of lineal descendants, where the inheritance lias not been transmitted by descent or derived from an ancestor (as mentioned in the 4th rule,) or where, if so transmitted or derived, the blood of such ancestor is extinct, the inheritance shall descend to the next collateral relations of the person last seized, whether of the paternal or maternal line.” In this case, the land had been transmitted by descent from an ancestor to Margaret, the person last seized ; but the blood of Mrs. Cocke, the ancestor, has become extinct. On this event happening, the inheritance descended, according to the aforesaid rule, to the next collateral relations of the paternal line of Margaret, the person last seized. These persons are her brother and sisters of the half blood, the children of her father, John Peter.

We are of the opinion that the lands mentioned did not escheat. The judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.C. 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/den-on-demise-of-the-university-of-north-carolina-v-brown-nc-1841.