Moore v. . Parker

34 N.C. 123
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1851
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 N.C. 123 (Moore v. . Parker) 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
Moore v. . Parker, 34 N.C. 123 (N.C. 1851).

Opinion

Pearson. J.

John Moore, who died in 1826, devised the land, sued for, to his son Adolphus for life, “and after his death to the heirs of his body, to be equally divided between them, to them and their heirs forever and if he dies without heirs of his body, living at the time of his death," then to his daughter Sally Matilda.

*129 Adolphus took only an estate for life. The rule in Shelley's case does not apply.

This point is settled bj Jones v Ward, 5 Ire. Eq. 400, where the matter is fully discussed and the cases reviewed. Indeed, this is a plainer case; for, there, no words of inherb tauce were added to the estate of the issue, and it was necessary to supply them, by inference from the act of 1784, ch. 204, sec. 12. Here, the words are added by the will. Then, it'was necessary to supply the words, “ living at the time of his death” by inference from the act of 1784; here, the words are added by the will.

Adolphus Moore, having only an estate for life, his warranty does not bar or rebut the lessor of the plaintiff; for she claims by purchase, and not by descent. By the Rev. Stat. ch. 43 — sec. 8, it is provided, that all warranties made ■by a tenant for life, descending or coming to any person in remainder or reversion, shall be void and of no effect. This is are-enactment of 4 Ann. Ch. 16, Sec. 21.

We also concur with his Honor upon the question, as to the presumption of death, when one has been absent or not heard of for more than seven years. The circumstance, that, during the term, there was a rumor of his being alive, which proved upon investigation to be wholly without foundation, tended rather to confirm, than to weaken the presumption; for, it thus appeared, that diligent enquiry had been made after him.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Sprinkle v. City of Reidsville
69 S.E.2d 179 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Chamblee v. Security National Bank
188 S.E. 632 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Thompson v. . Humphrey
101 S.E. 738 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Hauser v. Craft.
46 S.E. 756 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.C. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-parker-nc-1851.