Finley v. Finley
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | CONNOR, J. |
| Citation | Finley v. Finley, 201 N.C. 1, 158 S.E. 549 (N.C. 1931) |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | 560. |
| Parties | FINLEY et al. v. FINLEY et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wilkes County; Grady, Judge.
Action by J. R. Finley, executor of J. T. Finley, deceased, and another, against S. G. Finley and others, heirs at law and devisees of J. T. Finley and another, both deceased. From the judgment, S. G. Finley appeals.
Appeal and action dismissed.
Equity does not exercise advisory jurisdiction to construe wills if no trust has been created.
This is an action for the purpose of determining the quality of the estate which was devised to each of the devisees named in the last will and testament of J. T. Finley, deceased, in the lands owned by the testator at his death.
J. T Finley died on May 12, 1926, leaving a last will and testament, which has been duly probated and recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court of Wilkes county. The pertinent provisions of his said last will and testament are as follows:
The plaintiff J. R. Finley, as executor of said last will and testament, has practically completed the administration of the estate of his testator, and has paid to each of the legatees named therein his or her share of the personal property owned by the testator at his death, and bequeathed to said legatees by said last will and testament.
The plaintiff J. R. Finley, acting under a power of attorney, executed by the devisees named in the last will and testament of his testator, has sold and conveyed the real estate owned by his testator at his death, and devised to said devisees by said last will and testament. He now has in hand funds and securities derived from the sale of said real estate, to be distributed among the said devisees in accordance with their respective interests therein. Since the execution of said power of attorney and the sale of said real estate, a controversy has arisen among the said devisees with respect to the quality of the estate which each of them took under the provisions of the last will and testament of J. T. Finley, deceased. This action was instituted by the plaintiff J. R. Finley, as executor of the last will and testament of J. T. Finley, deceased, and by the administratrix c. t. a. of Miss Clara Finley, who has died since the death of J. T. Finley, for the purpose of having the court to determine the quality of the estate which each of the devisees named in said last will and testament took in the real estate devised to them under and by virtue of the provisions thereof.
When the action was called for hearing, a trial by jury was wavied by all the parties. On the facts found by the court, it was ordered, considered, and adjudged that each of the devisees named in the last will and testament of J. T. Finley took an estate in fee simple in the share of the real estate devised to him or to her by said last will and testament, and an absolute title to the share of the personal property bequeathed to him or her thereby. It was ordered that J. R. Finley, executor of J. T. Finley, deceased, and Miss Annie M. Finley, administratrix c.t.a. of Miss Clara M. Finley, administer their respective estates in accordance with the judgment of the court.
From this judgment, the defendant S. G. Finley appealed to the Supreme Court.
Frank D. Hackett, of North Wilkesboro, and Eugene Trivette, of Boone, for appellant S. G. Finley.
Charles G. Gilreath, of Wilkesboro, for appellees.
After the appeal from the judgment of the superior court in this action had been docketed in this court, the defendant S. G Finley moved that both the appeal and the action be dismissed, for the reason that the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action of which the superior court of Wilkes county had jurisdiction. This motion was in effect a demurrer ore tenus to the complaint on these grounds. The defendant, by filing an answer to the complaint in the superior court, did not waive his right to...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Spencer v. McCleneghan
... ... Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Stevenson, 196 N.C. 29, ... 144 S.E. 370; Mountain Park Institute v. Lovill, 198 ... N.C. 642, 153 S.E. 114; Finley v. Finley, 201 N.C ... 1, 158 S.E. 549 ... In ... Williams v. Williams, 204 Ill. 44, at pages 50, 51, ... 68 N.E. 449, 451, ... ...
-
Cannon v. Cannon
... ... Equity will instruct the Trustees how ... to proceed, but there is no occasion for the court to ... administer the trust. Finley" v. Finley, 201 N.C. 1, ... 158 S.E. 549; Reid v. Alexander, 170 N.C. 303, 87 ... S.E. 125. The demurrers were well interposed ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Thompson's Dependents v. Johnson Funeral Home
... ... Tillery v. Benefit Society, 165 N.C. 262, 80 S.E. 1068; ... McDonald v. MacArthur Bros. Co., 154 N.C. 122, 69 S.E ... 832." See, also, Finley v. Finley, 201 N.C. 1, ... 158 S.E. 549; Tallahassee Power Co. v. Peacock, 197 ... N.C. 735, 150 S.E. 510 ... Jurisdiction, ... ...
-
Carpenter v. Boyles
...had no jurisdiction of the action and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Finley v. Finley, 201 N.C. 1, 3, 158 S.E. 549. objections except those on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of action, and that the complaint does not state ......