Evans Ad'm'r v. . Singletary

63 N.C. 205
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 63 N.C. 205 (Evans Ad'm'r v. . Singletary) 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
Evans Ad'm'r v. . Singletary, 63 N.C. 205 (N.C. 1869).

Opinion

Dice, J.

We regret the necessity of overruling the interlocutory order of his Honor, in the Court below, as it is in accordance with the equity of the matter; but the strict rules of law must be observed in a Court of law.

Previous to the Act of 1846 (Rev. Code ch. 46, s 44 &c.,) an administrator had no power to sell the lands of his intestate to pay debts and charges of administration. The tedious and expensive method of subjecting the real estate of deceased persons to the payment of debts, induced the legislation above referred to.

That Act vested a limited equity jurisdiction upon the subject, in the County Courts, but that jurisdiction is at an end upon the confirmation of the sale of land and the order to collect the purchase money and make title. This limited jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by implication. Thompson v. Cox, et. al. 8 Jon. 311.

The transfer of the case before us from the County to the .Superior Court, did not enlarge the jurisdiction, as it was on the law side of the docket, and it must be governed by the laws which were in existence prior the adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It this case were in a Court of Equity, the interlocutory order of his Honor would be right, as that Court has the extensive remedial jurisdiction of decreeing specific performance of such contracts. In the matter of Yates, 6 Jon. Eq. 212.

*207 As tbe plaintiff has failed to collect the purchase money by an action at law, and Courts of Equity are now abolished, he may find adequate relief by special proceedings, provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, as they now furnish «equitable remedies. As an incentive to active diligence on the part of the plaintiff, we think proper to suggest, that he may have made himself personally responsible for the debt, by his release under seal to Richard Singletary, one of the ¡sureties of the defendant.

The interlocutory order appealed from must be over-ruled. .Let this be certified, Ac.

Per Curiam. ■ Order overruled.

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

Related

Perry v. Jolly
130 S.E.2d 654 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Page v. Miller
113 S.E.2d 52 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Nelms v. Nelms
108 S.E.2d 529 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
State v. Black
59 S.E.2d 621 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Jackson v. Porter
87 Okla. 112 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Twin State Oil Co. v. Johnson
176 P. 605 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
In Re Johnson
1919 OK 88 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Peterson v. . Vann
83 N.C. 118 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)
Carter v. McGehee
20 F. Cas. 615 (W.D. North Carolina, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 N.C. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-admr-v-singletary-nc-1869.