In Re Estate of Pruden

144 S.E. 533, 196 N.C. 69, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 281
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 26, 1928
StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 533 (In Re Estate of Pruden) 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 Estate of Pruden, 144 S.E. 533, 196 N.C. 69, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 281 (N.C. 1928).

Opinion

BbogdeN, J.

The law governing the distribution of War Risk Insurance has been declared by this Court in Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Brinkley, Administrator of the Estate of Jade W. Montague, ante, p. 40. This action, however, must be remanded to the Superior Court of Gates County for the reason that essential facts are not disclosed in the record. In the first place, it appears in- the agreed statement of facts that the deceased soldier, Arthur Pruden, died in Pennsylvania, and a certain exhibit from the United-States Veterans Bureau, dated 25 March,' 1927,' indicates that the last legal residence of deceased was Pennsylvania. The domicile of the deceased soldier at the time of his death must' appear. If the deceased soldier was domiciled in Pennsylvania at the time of his death, then the record must show the intestate law of that State at the time of the death. The statute law of another State is a fact to be shown because this Court cannot" take judicial'notice thereof. Hilliard v. Outlaw, 92 N. C., 266; Mottu v. Davis, 151 N. C., 237, 65 S. E., 969; Carriage Co. v. Dowd, 155 N. C., 307, 71 S. E., 721.

The record further discloses that the certificate or policy of insurance issued to the deceased soldier named his mother, Mary Elizabeth Brothers, as sole beneficiary, and in another place in the record • it appears that Richard Pruden and Ada Harrell were designated as beneficiaries by the deceased soldier. These contradictory declarations in the record, without explanation, are confusing.

The cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Gates County to the end that the essential facts may be found and judgment entered thereon in accordance with the law as declared in the case of Branch Banking and Trust Co. v. Brinkley, supra.

Remanded.

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

Related

Mottu v. Davis.
65 S.E. 969 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Louis Hilliard & Co. v. Outlaw
92 N.C. 266 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1885)
Brown Carriage Co. v. Dowd
71 S.E. 721 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 S.E. 533, 196 N.C. 69, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-pruden-nc-1928.