Jackson v. . Hewlett

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Jackson v. . Hewlett

197 S.E. 158, 213 N.C. 805, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 208

DecidedMay 25, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 197 S.E. 158 (Jackson v. . Hewlett) 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

Jackson v. . Hewlett, 197 S.E. 158, 213 N.C. 805, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 208 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff instituted bis action against tbe administrator of tbe estate of bis divorced wife for tbe recovery of certain amounts expended by bim for repairs and improvements placed upon tbe bouse of bis said wife. It was alleged that tbe expenditures were made in 1918, shortly before tbe marriage, upon ber oral promise to pay tberefor.

Plaintiff and defendant’s intestate were married in 1918, and were divorced in 1933. Thereupon tbe defendant’s intestate removed to tbe State of Massachusetts, and died in 1935. Defendant pleaded tbe statute of limitations, and also that tbe alleged contract to pay was void for failure to comply with C. S., 2515. Judgment was rendered for defendant and plaintiff appealed.

If tbe contract for repayment to tbe plaintiff was made prior to tbe marriage in 1918, action thereon was barred by tbe statute of limitations, and, if made subsequent to tbe marriage, it was invalid because not in writing and acknowledged in tbe manner prescribed by O. S., 2515. In either event, plaintiff’s action was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff instituted bis action against tbe administrator of tbe estate of bis divorced wife for tbe recovery of certain amounts expended by bim for repairs and improvements placed upon tbe bouse of bis said wife. It was alleged that tbe expenditures were made in 1918, shortly before tbe marriage, upon ber oral promise to pay tberefor.

Plaintiff and defendant’s intestate were married in 1918, and were divorced in 1933. Thereupon tbe defendant’s intestate removed to tbe State of Massachusetts, and died in 1935. Defendant pleaded tbe statute of limitations, and also that tbe alleged contract to pay was void for failure to comply with C. S., 2515. Judgment was rendered for defendant and plaintiff appealed.

If tbe contract for repayment to tbe plaintiff was made prior to tbe marriage in 1918, action thereon was barred by tbe statute of limitations, and, if made subsequent to tbe marriage, it was invalid because not in writing and acknowledged in tbe manner prescribed by O. S., 2515. In either event, plaintiff’s action was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.E. 158, 213 N.C. 805, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-hewlett-nc-1938.