Bridgers v. Hutchins
| Decision Date | 30 June 1850 |
| Citation | 11 Ired. 68,33 N.C. 68 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOSIAH BRIDGERS & WIFE v. ISAAC W. HUTCHINS, ADM'R., . |
An advancement to a husband by his father in law is an advancement to the wife.
The release or cancelling of the bonds of a child, with an intention thereby to prefer him in life, is as much an advancement as so much cash.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Wake County, at the Spring Term 1850, His Honor, Judge MANLY, presiding.
The suit is for an account and distribution of the personal estate of Isaac Hutchins, who died intestate in 1844, leaving four children; of whom the feme plaintiff is one. After the administrator's answer, it was referred to the master to state the accounts of the administration, and also to enquire whether the intestate made any advancements to his children respectively and what they were, and upon the basis thereof, if found, to state the share due to the several children, if any.
The report ascertained the surplus in the hands of the administrator, and, after taking into the fund the several advancements made to the children respectively, it found that nothing further was going to the plaintiffs, by reason of an advancement made to the husband, Bridgers, as found by the master upon the examination of Bridgers.--Besides advancements in slaves, and other effects, and cash given, Bridgers stated before the master, that some years before 1842, but after his marriage, he borrowed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wacker v. Wacker
... ... Doermann, had in mind making an advancement to his daughter, ... Louisa, as well as to his son, John. Bridgers v ... Hutchins, 11 Ired. 68; Wilson v. Wilson, 18 ... Ala. 176; Lindsay v. Platt, 9 Fla. 150; Stewart ... v. Pattison, 8 Gill 46; Dilley v. Love, ... ...
-
Ireland v. Dyer
...the decisions of the courts of other states directly adverse to the position of counsel for defendant in error. In the case of Bridgers v. Hutchins, 33 N.C. 68, the court "A gift to the husband during coverture is undoubtedly an advancement to the wife." And in Haglar v. McCombs, 66 N.C. 34......
-
Bruce v. Slemp And Wife
... ... decree appealed from here ... Chief ... Justice Ruffin said in Bridges v. Hutchins, ... 11 Ired. 68: "A gift to the husband during coverture is ... undoubtedly an advancement to the wife; and it is quite clear ... that the ... ...
-
Deussen v. Moegelin
...dead in point of effect. 2 Story, Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 705a; Vanderbeck v. Vanderbeck, supra; Edwards v. Campbell, 23 Barb. 423; Bridges v. Hutchins, 33 N. C. 68. We conclude, therefore, that the allegations in appellees' petition, and the evidence adduced in support of it, are amply suffici......