Hinsdale v. . Williams

75 N.C. 430
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 75 N.C. 430 (Hinsdale v. . Williams) 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
Hinsdale v. . Williams, 75 N.C. 430 (N.C. 1876).

Opinion

Reade, J.

It is conceded that a reversionary interest in a homestead is not subject to sale for any debt under execution. Bat. Rev., chap. 55, sec. 26. Poe v. Hardie, 65 N. C. Rep., 447.

The question presented now is, whether such reversionary *431 interest is subject to sale by an administrator under an order of Court, in a proceeding to make real estate assets, to pay the debts of the intestate homesteader, during the minority of one of his children, who is in the enjoyment of the homestead.

The reason given why the reversionary interest of the original homesteader should not be sold in his lifetime is that the interest is an uncertain one, being for his life ; and therefore, the sale and purchase must be a mere speculation ; and, furthermore, that it is against the policy of the homestead law to have the homestead disturbed by an adverse interest.

It is insisted that the first reason does not obtain here, because the defendant’s interest is not for life; nor for any uncertain period; but until he shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years, which is eight years. But the plaintiff overlooks the fact that'while the defendant’s term cannot go beyond eight years, yet it may fall very far short of it, in the event of the defendant’s death. So that the interest is uncertain. It may be one year, or eight years.

There are two reasons urged why an administrator ought to be allowed to sell which do not apply to a sale under execution. In the first place, it is important that the estate of deceased persons should be settled up speedily. That is undoubtedly true; and we have to choose between that evil and the evils of selling uncertain interests, and of disturbing the homestead. And our determination is against the sale.

In the second place, it is urged that the statute supra¡ against the sale of reversionary interests in homesteads is only against sales under “ executions.” And such is the letter of the statute. But the purpose of the statute was to prevent forced sales of the reversionary interest, under any circumstances. What difference can it make whether the sale is under an order of the Court called an execution, or under an *432 order of the Court called an “ order of sale,” or by some other name ?

There is no error. Affirmed with costs. . This will be certified to the end that- order may be taken for the sale of the"excess over the homestead, if there be any excess.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Stokes v. Smith
100 S.E.2d 85 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Rocky Mount Savings & Trust Co. v. McDearman
195 S.E. 531 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Joyner v. Sugg.
44 S.E. 122 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
McCloy & Trotter v. Arnett
47 Ark. 445 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1886)
Mebane v. . Layton
89 N.C. 396 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
Windley v. . Tankard
88 N.C. 223 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
Gamble v. . Watterson
83 N.C. 573 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)
Shields v. . Allen
77 N.C. 375 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1877)
Jenkins v. . Bobbitt
77 N.C. 385 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 N.C. 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinsdale-v-williams-nc-1876.