Parker v. Grant
| Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
| Citation | 91 N.C. 338 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | B. W. PARKER and others v. A. T. GRANT and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL ACTION, tried upon exceptions to a referee's report at Spring Term, 1884, of DAVIE Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.
The action was brought by the plaintiffs as next of kin of John R. Parker, deceased, against the defendants A. T. Grant and Rebecca Grant (formerly Parker) and others, sureties upon their bond as administrator and administratrix of said deceased.
The next of kin were B. W. Parker, E. N. Parker, L. F. Parker and the defendant Rebecca. Each was entitled to one-fourth of the estate. B. W. Parker was entitled however to two shares--one in his own right, and the other by purchase of the share of E. N. Parker.
L. F. Parker died, and A. M. Parker is entitled to his share as his administratrix.
The defendants James A. Kelly and James B. Lanier are the sureties on the administration bond of the defendants A. T. and Rebecca Grant.
Pleadings in the case were regularly filed, and at fall term, 1881, the case was referred to G. M. Bingham to take and state an account of the administration of the estate of said intestate, John R. Parker, and a report was made to fall term, 1883.
The defendants offered in evidence before the referee, and claimed the right to be allowed to retain the following debts due to them by their intestate:
1. A judgment rendered in Rowan county court in favor of T. J. Meroney, plaintiff, against John R. Parker, defendant, at May term, 1868, (on the 4th of May, 1868,) for the sum of $1,020.15, and costs, of which judgment the defendant Rebecca claimed to be the owner, but the plaintiffs denied she was the owner. Testimony was offered on that question by both parties.
2. The defendants also claimed to be allowed as a retainer an account due by their intestate to Rebecca, prior to the first day of May, 1868.
The plaintiffs objected to the allowance of these retainers upon the ground that the intestate owed nothing to either of the defendants, and for the further reason that the intestate in his life-time had been duly discharged as an adjudicated bankrupt from all his debts, including the aforesaid alleged debts to the defendants. In support of this defence, the plaintiffs offered in evidence the original discharge in bankruptcy granted to John R. Parker by the district court of the United States for the Cape Fear district of North Carolina, bearing date the 9th of July, 1870, by which it appeared that it was ordered by the court that John R. Parker be forever discharged from all debts and claims, which by said act of bankruptcy are made provable against his estate, and which existed on the 30th of May, 1868, on which day the petition for adjudication was filed by him.
The referee ruled that the discharge in bankruptcy operated a discharge of said judgment and account, which existed prior to the 30th of May, 1868, and refused to allow the defendants credit as retainers for the amount of the same. To this ruling the defendants filed the following exceptions:
1. For that the referee refused to allow defendants, in accounting with the intestate's estate, the said judgment, and which the referee finds belonged to the defendants at the rendition thereof.
2. For that the referee refused to allow the defendants the value of the various articles of personal property claimed by defendant Rebecca to have been retained by John R. Parker, at the time Rebecca married and left his house.
The defendant Rebecca also claimed to be allowed as a retainer the sum of thirty dollars for her services, while acting as administratrix in taking care of the property of her intestate for three months. The referee allowed this credit and the plaintiffs excepted.
His Honor, upon the argument before him, overruled both of the defendants' exceptions, and sustained the exception of the plaintiffs. Judgment was accordingly rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed.
Messrs. Clement & Gaither, for plaintiffs .
Mr. J. A. Williamson, for defendants .
The only question presented for our consideration by the record, is, whether there was any error in the ruling of the court below in disallowing the exceptions taken by the defendants, and sustaining that taken by the plaintiffs.
The first exception is, that the referee refused to allow the defendants to retain the amount of a judgment rendered in the court of pleas and quarter sessions of Rowan county, in 1868, in favor of T. J. Meroney against John R. Parker for $1020.15, which was proved to belong to the defendant Rebecca.
On the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Currier v. Studley
...696, 9 S.Ct. 690; Waltermire v. Westover, 14 N.Y. 16, 20; Grant v. Burr, 54 Cal. 298; Buckingham v. Ludlum, 37 N.J.Eq. 137, 147; Parker v. Grant, 91 N.C. 338; Goodwin Morris, 9 Or. 322; Campbell v. Maple's Adm'r, 105 Pa.St. 304; Jordan v. Jordan, 85 Tenn. 561, 565, 3 S.W.Rep. 896; Fievel v.......
-
Menzel v. Hinton
...to secure it. Capehart v. Dettrick, 91 N.C. 344. This, because the bar of the statute affects only the remedy, and not the right. Parker v. Grant, 91 N.C. 338; Rouss Ditmore, 122 N.C. 775, 30 S.E. 335; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. 146; Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 206, 4 L.Ed. 529. Hence it is ......
-
Lightner v. Boone
...additional sum for loss of time and personal services. Schaw's Adm'r v. Schaw's Heirs, 1 N.C. 168; Morris v. Morris, 54 N.C. 326; Parker v. Grant, 91 N.C. 338; In Battle's Estate, 158 N.C. 388, 74 S.E. 23. Such commissions are allowed as compensation for services rendered both because such ......
-
Yount v. Miller
... ... This was refused--the court holding that thirty years' actual adverse possession raised a presumption of a grant, whether there were visible boundaries or not. To this the defendant excepted.2nd Exception. The defendant also asked the court to charge that as ... ...