McCraw v. . Edwards

Supreme Court of North Carolina

McCraw v. . Edwards

41 N.C. 202

DecidedAugust 5, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 41 N.C. 202 (McCraw v. . Edwards) 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

McCraw v. . Edwards, 41 N.C. 202 (N.C. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

Ruffin, C. J.

The bill does not state, that the transaction between McCarthy and Baber derived any peculiar efficacy from the law of South Carolina ; and, in the absence of such an allegation, we must assume that it did not, and are at liberty to suppose, that the validity of the gift depends upon the same rules of the canon or common law, which all the States of English origin received .from the mother country. By that law the alleged gift is clearly ineffectual, for the want of the delivery of the bond, express or implied. 1 Rop. Leg. 12. The transaction did not purport to be a present conditional gift, dependant upon the death or recovery of the donor; but it seems to have been rather a disposition, after the death of the donor, for the payment of debts and also for a bounty, in the nature of a nuncupative will, and, consequently, it cannot be executed in this Court, until the fact and validity of such a disposition have been establishad by the judgment of a Court of probate.

Per Curiam.

Bill dismissed with costs.

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

Ruffin, C. J.

The bill does not state, that the transaction between McCarthy and Baber derived any peculiar efficacy from the law of South Carolina ; and, in the absence of such an allegation, we must assume that it did not, and are at liberty to suppose, that the validity of the gift depends upon the same rules of the canon or common law, which all the States of English origin received .from the mother country. By that law the alleged gift is clearly ineffectual, for the want of the delivery of the bond, express or implied. 1 Rop. Leg. 12. The transaction did not purport to be a present conditional gift, dependant upon the death or recovery of the donor; but it seems to have been rather a disposition, after the death of the donor, for the payment of debts and also for a bounty, in the nature of a nuncupative will, and, consequently, it cannot be executed in this Court, until the fact and validity of such a disposition have been establishad by the judgment of a Court of probate.

Per Curiam.

Bill dismissed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.C. 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccraw-v-edwards-nc-1849.