Hill v. Moore
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Citation | Hill v. Moore, 5 N.C. 233 (N.C. 1809) |
| Decision Date | 31 July 1809 |
| Parties | HILL, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., v. MOORE AND WATTERS, EXECUTORS OF CLARKE. |
A posthumous child is entitled to a distributive share under the statute of distributions.
JAMES MOORE died intestate in 1783, leaving a sister named Sarah and two brothers named Alfred and Julius Cæsar; he left his wife, Elizabeth, encient with a daughter, who was born, several months after his death. She was named Mary Paris, and died in September, 1784, without brothers or sisters. Elizabeth, her mother, having obtained administration of her estate, intermarried with William H. Hill, and died in 1788. Administration on her estate was granted to her surviving husband, William H. Hill.
After the death of James Moore, in 1783, but before the birth of Mary Paris, Julius Cæsar Moore died intestate and without issue, possessed of a large personal estate. Sarah, the sister of Julius and Alfred Moore, intermarried with Gen. Thomas Clarke, who died in 1791, having made a will and appointed Henry Watters executor thereof.
In 1785 Alfred Moore and Thomas Clarke, claiming one moiety of the share to which Mary Paris was entitled of her father, James Moore's estate, the said share was divided between Elizabeth, her mother, the administratrix of her estate, and the said Alfred Moore and Thomas Clarke.
The estate of Julius Cæsar Moore was taken possession of by Alfred Moore and Thomas Clarke, and one-sixth part thereof allotted to Elizabeth, administratrix of the estate of Mary Paris Moore.
This bill was brought by William H. Hill, as administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, Elizabeth, against Alfred Moore, and also against Henry Watters, executor of the last will of Thomas Clarke, deceased, praying, first, that the division of the estate of James Moore, deceased,which had been made in 1785, might be set aside, and the share thereof delivered over to Alfred Moore and Thomas Clarke be decreed to be returned, etc., upon the ground that upon the death of James Moore one-third part of his personal estate belonged to his wife, Elizabeth, and upon the birth of his daughter, Mary Paris, the other two-thirds belonged to her; that upon the death of Mary Paris, her two-thirds vested in her mother, Elizabeth, so that Alfred Moore and Thomas Clarke had no right to any part thereof. Secondly, that an account might be taken of the estate of Julius Cæsar Moore, deceased, and one-third part thereof be decreed to be paid 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
-
Byerly v. Tolbert
...intestate's personal estate to an after-born child whose birth occurs within ten lunar months from the death of the intestate. In Hill v. Moore, 5 N.C. 233, it was held that an infant en ventre sa mere when the father dies is entitled to a child's distributive share of the father's personal......
-
Stam v. State, 7910SC546
...North Carolina Supreme Court recognized that after-born children were entitled to a distributive share of an intestate's estate. Hill v. Moore, 5 N.C. 233 (1809). The common law as to deeds was changed by N.C.Rev.Code Ch. 43, § 4 (1854) which provided that an unborn infant in esse "shall be......