In Re Administration of the Estate of Ryan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In Re Administration of the Estate of Ryan

122 S.E. 289, 187 N.C. 569, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 342

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 16, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 289 (In Re Administration of the Estate of Ryan) 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

In Re Administration of the Estate of Ryan, 122 S.E. 289, 187 N.C. 569, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 342 (N.C. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, J.

On 14 August, 1922, E, T. Kemp was appointed administrator of the estate of Frank Eyan, deceased, by the clerk of the Superior Court for New Hanover County, upon representation duly made to him that the deceased was domiciled in said county at the time of his death.

On 25 September, 1922, H. J. Marshall was appointed administrator of the estate of Frank Eyan, deceased, by the clerk of the Superior Court for Pender Oounty, upon representation duly made to him that the deceased was domiciled in said county at the time of his death.

This proceeding is brought by H. J. Marshall, who was appointed administrator of the estate of Frank Eyan by the clerk of the Superior Court for Pender County, to have the letters of administration, granted to E. T. Kemp by the clerk of the Superior Court for New Hanover County, vacated and set aside, or revoked, upon the ground that the deceased was never a resident of, or domiciled in, the county of New Hanover.

Upon competent evidence, the clerk found, among other things, that Frank Eyan, at the time of his death, was a resident of, and domiciled in, the county of Pender, State of North Carolina; that he had never been a resident of, or domiciled in, New Hanover Oounty. The petition to recall or to revoke the letters of administration theretofore issued by him to the respondent, E. T. Kemp, was thereupon allowed and judgment entered accordingly. The matter was heard de novo on appeal *570 from tbe .clerk, before bis Honor, E. H. Cranmer, wbo, after considering tbe evidence, approved tbe clerk’s findings and affirmed bis judgment. In tbis we find no error.

. Domicile is a question of fact and intention; and npon tbe facts found bere, tbe'judgment must be upheld. In re Martin, 185 N. C., 472. See, also, Reynolds v. Cotton Mills, 177 N. C., 412, where tbe subject is fully-discussed in an opinion by Wallcer, J.

Affirmed.

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

Stacy, J.

On 14 August, 1922, E, T. Kemp was appointed administrator of the estate of Frank Eyan, deceased, by the clerk of the Superior Court for New Hanover County, upon representation duly made to him that the deceased was domiciled in said county at the time of his death.

On 25 September, 1922, H. J. Marshall was appointed administrator of the estate of Frank Eyan, deceased, by the clerk of the Superior Court for Pender Oounty, upon representation duly made to him that the deceased was domiciled in said county at the time of his death.

This proceeding is brought by H. J. Marshall, who was appointed administrator of the estate of Frank Eyan by the clerk of the Superior Court for Pender County, to have the letters of administration, granted to E. T. Kemp by the clerk of the Superior Court for New Hanover County, vacated and set aside, or revoked, upon the ground that the deceased was never a resident of, or domiciled in, the county of New Hanover.

Upon competent evidence, the clerk found, among other things, that Frank Eyan, at the time of his death, was a resident of, and domiciled in, the county of Pender, State of North Carolina; that he had never been a resident of, or domiciled in, New Hanover Oounty. The petition to recall or to revoke the letters of administration theretofore issued by him to the respondent, E. T. Kemp, was thereupon allowed and judgment entered accordingly. The matter was heard de novo on appeal *570 from tbe .clerk, before bis Honor, E. H. Cranmer, wbo, after considering tbe evidence, approved tbe clerk’s findings and affirmed bis judgment. In tbis we find no error.

. Domicile is a question of fact and intention; and npon tbe facts found bere, tbe'judgment must be upheld. In re Martin, 185 N. C., 472. See, also, Reynolds v. Cotton Mills, 177 N. C., 412, where tbe subject is fully-discussed in an opinion by Wallcer, J.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 289, 187 N.C. 569, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-administration-of-the-estate-of-ryan-nc-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack