Ledbetter v. Gash
| Decision Date | 31 August 1848 |
| Citation | 8 Ired. 462,30 N.C. 462 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | RICHARD LEDBETTER et al. v. L. O. GASH. |
The law gives to tenants in common an absolute right to have their land divided.
A decree for partition should shew, on its face, the particular land to be divided, and the portion or share of the land, to which each of the tenants is entitled.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Henderson County, at the Spring Term, 1848, his Hono?? Judge BATTLE, presiding.
The petition is filed to procure a division of land. It sets forth that the petitioners are tenants in common in fee simple with the defendant, Gash, in three several tracts of land in the County of Henderson, on the waters of the French Broad River. The boundries of the tracts are set forth, in the exhibits filed with the petition, and the tracts are stated to contain thirteen hundred acres. The petitioners state that Alford, Augustus, Silas, Asais, Ephraim, and Scion Ledbetter, who are infants and sue by their guardian Charles Stagle, and John and Ann, and Joseph Ledbetter, and Ambrose Litton, and his wife Elizabeth, are entitled each to one fifteenth of said land, and Richard Ledbetter, and the defendant Gash are entitled to or own five fifteenths in equal moieties. They pray a partition of the land, so that each may hold his share or portion in severalty, as it will be to their interest, and pray for the appointment of commissioners for that purpose, according to law. The answer of Gash admits, that he is a tenant in common, with the petitioners, of the lands set forth, and in the proportions stated. It denies, that it will be to the interest of the parties, to have partition made; but states that the land ought to be sold and the proceeds divided. To this purpose he is about to file a petition in Equity.
Baxter, for the plaintiff .
N. W. Woodfin, for the defendant .
The subpoena in this case was returned to the Spring Term 1848 of the Superior Court of Law for Henderson County, at which Term the defendant filed his answer, and the Court adjudged there should be a partition, as prayed for and an order was made at the same time appointing commissioners to divide and allot the land, and from this judgment the defendant appealed. The defendant in his answer, opposes the granting of the prayer of the petitions, upon the the ground that it will be more to the interest of all the parties to have the land sold and the money divided, becuase of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skipper v. Yow
...interest in the property are properly before the court before it proceeds to direct partition. Alsbrook v. Reid, 89 N.C. 151; Ledbetter v. Gash, 30 N.C. 462; Richardson v. Barnes, 238 N.C. 398, 77 S.E.2d 925; Lockleair v. Martin, 245 N.C. 378, 96 S.E.2d 24; 68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 90, 92, pp......
-
Updike v. Adams
...also, Hill v. Reno, 112 Ill. 154; Vint v. King, 2 Am. Law Reg. 729, Fed. Cas. No. 16.950; Holmes v. Holmes, 2 Jones, Eq. 334; Ledbetter v. Gash, 8 Ired. 462; Mitchell v. Starbuck, 10 Mass. 5; Potter v. Wheeler, 13 Mass. 504; Donnell v. Mateer, 7 Ired. Eq. 94; Campbell v. Lowe, 9 Md. 500; Hi......