Jones v. . Slaughter

2 S.E. 681, 96 N.C. 541
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1887
StatusPublished

This text of 2 S.E. 681 (Jones v. . Slaughter) 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
Jones v. . Slaughter, 2 S.E. 681, 96 N.C. 541 (N.C. 1887).

Opinion

After the appeal was docketed in this Court, the appellee moved to dismiss for non-compliance in giving and justifying the appeal bond, as required by The Code, § 560, in that the sureties do not justify in double the amount thereof. This motion was filed on December 13th, 1886.

The facts upon the merits are as follows:

One Barclay McGhee, residing in Monroe county, Tennessee, in the month of June, 1853, entered into an agreement with Edward Delozier, a resident of Cherokee county in this State, for the purchase of an interest in certain entries of land in the last mentioned county, and after having made *Page 542 advances in money therefor, died before consummating the contract. His widow, Mary K., who by a subsequent marriage became Mary K. Parker, administered on her husband's estate in Tennessee, but never took out letters in this State. In her capacity as such administratrix, in March, 1857, she entered into covenant relations, binding upon herself personally, with the said Edward Delozier, in which the latter undertook to sell and convey to her on perfecting his own title, several tracts therein described, containing one thousand acres, for the sum of $2,000, to be paid when the grants were issued, and $1,200 more, payable at the end of twelve months, and "also for the cancelling of all suits and claims between said parties," each paying his own costs. There was also this provision: "And it is understood that such stipulation shall bind the heirs, administrators and executors of the respective parties"; and one added as a postscript, that the said Mary K. shall pay $170 due the State, in addition, and the contract to become null if she fails to get a good warranty title to the premises. The money was subsequently paid, and the said Mary K. obtained grants from the State, which she caused to be issued to her as administratrix.

The present action is brought by two of the daughters of the deceased (Barclay) and their husbands, who have succeeded to the estate of three others, to whom, with said daughters as heirs at law and tenants in common, the equitable estate of said Barclay, becoming the legal estate in the administratrix after his death, as trustee, descended, to recover possession and have the defendant Cooper, to whom she has assigned, declared and held responsible as a succeeding trustee.

The defence relied on arises out of the final disposition by compromise of a suit wherein the present plaintiffs are parties, instituted in the Chancery Court of Monroe county, *Page 543 Tennessee, for a full and final settlement of the trust estate in the hands of the said Mary K.

In her answer, she admits the receipt of large sums of money, and states in what manner it has been expended, mentioning among others, the payment of over $10,000 for the Tague School lands, and of $4,000 to said Edward Delozier, under advice of counsel, in adjusting a suit pending in this State between him and her deceased husband; and further that she surrendered to a receiver in a former action, which seems to have been discontinued, personal property of the value of more than $13,000. If these disbursements are allowed, the answer avers, they exceed what she is strictly accountable for.

Thereupon, a reference was ordered, to ascertain: (1.) what amount of personal assets have come, or ought to have come into the defendant's hands; (2.) how the same have been disbursed; (3.) what debts, if any, remain unpaid, and to whom due; and, (4.) what is due to the children of the deceased, of the sums adjudged to be paid by her to them, for excess in value of the dower assigned to her. Pending this reference, a compromise was agreed upon, and a decree entered in this form:

"Be it remembered, this cause came on to be heard before the Honorable W. M. Bradford, on the 5th day of June, 1878, and the complainants to this cause producing in open Court a written compromise signed by all the parties, and duly acknowledged before the clerk of the County Court, and which is in the words and figures following, to-wit:

C. C. JONES and wife et al. } In the Chancery vs. } Court at Madisonville, MARY K. PARKER, administratrix, et al. } Tennessee.

"The several parties to the above entitled cause, hereby agree to adjust and compromise all matters of controversy thereto upon the following terms, to-wit: *Page 544

"1. The said Mary K. Parker, by her settlement therein before the clerk and master, shows herself to be indebted to the estate of Barclay McGhee, deceased, in the sum of twenty-four thousand six hundred and eighty-five dollars and seventeen cents.

"2. The said Mary K. Parker is indebted to the surviving children of said Barclay McGhee, in the sum of one hundred dollars per year from the first day of January, 1859. Making an aggregate of thirty-two hundred and one dollars and fifty cents.

"3. In satisfaction of the sums thus ascertained to be due as aforesaid, and in full discharge and acquittance of said Mary K. Parker, both in her said representative capacity and in her individual and personal capacity, from all liability to said estate, and to the said children of Barclay McGhee, deceased, the latter hereby agree to accept the dower interest upon which the said Mary K. Parker now resides, to be divided between them by disinterested persons selected for that purpose, in equal parts according to the laws of descent and distribution.

"4. It is agreed, that said children, together with their husbands, to-wit: C. C. Jones and wife Margaret W., J. R. Jones and wife Bettie M., John B. McGhee and Ann R. McGhee, shall, and by this instrument do bind themselves, to pay to the said Mary K. Parker, for and during the term of her natural life, the sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars annually. That is to say, each of said parties shall pay to the said Mary K. the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars per year, payable on the first day of May of each year. But it is understood and agreed that said liability is several, neither being liable for the defaults of the other. It is further understood and agreed, that inasmuch as the said John B. McGhee has rented the dower interest, that for the current year the said John shall continue to occupy and enjoy said interest, and shall pay to the said Mary K. the *Page 545 amount due for the current year, at the end of which time, say about the 13th of October, 1878, the said John shall surrender to the several parties entitled, the respective interests awarded them by the commissioners appointed to partition said interest.

"5. For the security of said several sums of two hundred and fifty dollars, due as aforesaid by each of said parties, it is hereby agreed that said Mary K. Parker shall have and retain a lien upon the said dower interest, which shall attach to the parts assigned to said several parties respectively, and be a charge upon said several interests for the amount due, until paid by the party who may owe the same; the lien herein provided for being several in like manner as the payments.

"6. It is further agreed that the commissioners to be appointed to partition said land, be and they are hereby instructed to so partition said land, that the portions awarded to Ann E. McGhee shall include the mansion-house now occupied by the said Mary K. Parker.

"7. If is further agreed that a decree be entered in this case in conformity with the terms of this agreement, accepting said dower interest in full satisfaction of all liabilities on the part of the said Mary K.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 S.E. 681, 96 N.C. 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-slaughter-nc-1887.