Neale v. . Haddock

Superior Court of North Carolina

Neale v. . Haddock

3 N.C. 183

DecidedJuly 5, 1802

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.C. 183 (Neale v. . Haddock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Neale v. . Haddock, 3 N.C. 183 (N.C. Ct. App. 1802).

Pincite

Opinion

It is perfectly well settled that the husband is not entitled to the remainder of a chattel belonging to the wife at the time of the intermarriage. (186)

Verdict for plaintiff.

Quere de hoc.

NOTE. — See the note to Lewis v. Hines, 2 N.C. 278, and, in addition to the cases there cited, see Johnston v. Pasteur, 1 N.C. 582;Norfleet v. Harris, ibid., 517; Walker v. Mebane, 5 N.C. 41; Knight v.Leak, 19 N.C. 133; Revel v. Revel, 19 N.C. 272; Hardie v. Cotton,36 N.C. 61; Poindexter v. Blackburn, ibid., 286.

Cited: Weeks v. Weeks, 40 N.C. 120 (but under erroneous title ofBlount v. Haddock). *Page 196

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

It is perfectly well settled that the husband is not entitled to the remainder of a chattel belonging to the wife at the time of the intermarriage. (186)

Verdict for plaintiff.

Quere de hoc.

NOTE. — See the note to Lewis v. Hines, 2 N.C. 278, and, in addition to the cases there cited, see Johnston v. Pasteur, 1 N.C. 582;Norfleet v. Harris, ibid., 517; Walker v. Mebane, 5 N.C. 41; Knight v.Leak, 19 N.C. 133; Revel v. Revel, 19 N.C. 272; Hardie v. Cotton,36 N.C. 61; Poindexter v. Blackburn, ibid., 286.

Cited: Weeks v. Weeks, 40 N.C. 120 (but under erroneous title ofBlount v. Haddock). *Page 196

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.C. 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neale-v-haddock-ncsuperct-1802.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack