Neale v. . Haddock

Superior Court of North Carolina

Neale v. . Haddock

3 N.C. 183

Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided July 5, 1802·Published

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

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

Pincite

3 N.C. 183 (Neale v. . Haddock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related