Miles v. . Allen
This text of 28 N.C. 88 (Miles v. . Allen) 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.
Opinion
The limitation over, in the bequest in the will of John Lea, of the slave Hannah and her increase, after the death of his daughter, Betsey Evans, “,to be equally divided between the heirs of my daughter Betsey’s body,” is, in law, a good limitation over. That was. held by this Court in Swain v. Rascoe, 3 Iredell, 200.
*90 The remainder men had no right to commence their action, until the death of' their mother ; and three years had not run from that time before they brought their action ; the statute of limitations, therefore, was no bar. As to the damages — it appears, that the defendant held and claimed these slaves as his own property. It was, therefore, not necessary for the plaintiffs to have made any demand, before the commencement of their action. Knight v. Wall, 2 Dev. and Bat. 125 ; and damages were consequential upon the things sued for, from the commencement of the plaintiff’s right of action, which was on the death of their mother.
Per Curiam, Judgment "affirmed.,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 N.C. 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-allen-nc-1845.