Ray v. Long.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ray v. Long.

38 S.E. 291, 128 N.C. 90, 1901 N.C. LEXIS 341

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 2, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 38 S.E. 291 (Ray v. Long.) 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

Ray v. Long., 38 S.E. 291, 128 N.C. 90, 1901 N.C. LEXIS 341 (N.C. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Claeic, J.

Exceptions 4 and 5 must be sustained. It was error when his Honor told the jury, “If, when the land was *91 bought and deed taken from Thomas H. Long, if it was done under an agreement that husband and wife were to hold by entireties,” or “to hold an interest in the land according to the amount of her payment,” the wife was entitled to the land, or the half thereof (as the case might be). The marriage having taken place since 1868, he should have said to the jury, as laid down in Kirkpatrick v. Holmes, 108 N. C., 206, and approved in Ross v. Hendrix, 110 N. C., 405: “If her separate estate went into the hands of her husband, and he invested it in land, taking title in his own name in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, a trust would have resulted to her.” In Brisco v. Norris, 112 N. C.,676, it is said this equitable title was “such as to enable her, upon the strength of it, to recover the land from her husband, or from any one purchasing of him with notice of her rights, or from any one who had bought the land at a sale under execution against her husband, for such person would acquire only such title as her husband had.”

This renders it unnecessary to> consider the other exceptions, since they may not arise on another trial.

New trial.

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

Claeic, J.

Exceptions 4 and 5 must be sustained. It was error when his Honor told the jury, “If, when the land was *91 bought and deed taken from Thomas H. Long, if it was done under an agreement that husband and wife were to hold by entireties,” or “to hold an interest in the land according to the amount of her payment,” the wife was entitled to the land, or the half thereof (as the case might be). The marriage having taken place since 1868, he should have said to the jury, as laid down in Kirkpatrick v. Holmes, 108 N. C., 206, and approved in Ross v. Hendrix, 110 N. C., 405: “If her separate estate went into the hands of her husband, and he invested it in land, taking title in his own name in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, a trust would have resulted to her.” In Brisco v. Norris, 112 N. C.,676, it is said this equitable title was “such as to enable her, upon the strength of it, to recover the land from her husband, or from any one purchasing of him with notice of her rights, or from any one who had bought the land at a sale under execution against her husband, for such person would acquire only such title as her husband had.”

This renders it unnecessary to> consider the other exceptions, since they may not arise on another trial.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.E. 291, 128 N.C. 90, 1901 N.C. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-long-nc-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack