Paul v. Carter
| Decision Date | 14 September 1910 |
| Citation | 68 S.E. 905,163 N.C. 26 |
| Parties | PAUL et al. v. CARTER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Statutes adopted at the same time must be construed together, where they relate to the same subject-matter.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 302, 303; Dec. Dig. § 225.*]
Under Revisal, § 1556, rule 4, providing that on the failure of lineal descendants, where land has been transmitted by descent from an ancestor, the inheritance shall descend to the next collateral relations capable of inheriting of the person last seised who are of the blood of such ancestor, and rule 6, declaring that collateral relations of the half blood shall inherit equally with those of the whole blood, etc., the children of a man by his first marriage cannot inherit land inherited by the second wife from her father, where the man and his second wife died leaving a child of the second marriage which died in infancy, for the children of the first marriage were not of the blood of the second wife or of any blood of her father.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Descent and Distribution, Cent. Dig. § 45; Dec. Dig. § 14.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Beaufort County; Ferguson, Judge.
Action by Fenner Paul and another against S. Lloyd Carter. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
The plaintiffs brought this action to recover the possession of a tract of land. They claim title to the land as the children of J. B. Paul by his first marriage. J. B. Paul, after the death of his first wife, married Bettie Carter, who inherited a one-third interest in the land from her father, Stephen Carter; the other heirs of Stephen Carter being his two sons, Lawrence Carter, and the defendant. The latter has purchased the interest of Lawrence Carter, and is owner of the entire interest in the land, if the disputed question is decided in his favor. J. B. Paul had one child by his second marriage. He died, and then his wife, Bettie Paul, formerly Bet-tie Carter, died intestate; their child surviving them. The child died in infancy, and the plaintiffs now assert title to a one-third interest in the land as the heirs of the deceased child of J. B. and Bettie Paul, while the defendant claims that he and his brothers are the heirs of the child, and that he by purchase from them of two-thirds of that interest and inheritance in his own right of the other third is the sole owner of the land. The court so decided, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Ward & Grimes, for appellants.
W. M. Bond and N. L. Simmons for appellee.
WALKER, J. (after stating the facts as above). The solution of the question in this case depends upon the construction of rules 4 and 6 of the canons of descent. Revisal, c. 30, § 1556. Rule 4 provides that, on failure of lineal descendants where land has been transmitted by descent from an ancestor, the inheritance shall descend to the next collateral relations, capable of inheriting, of the person last seised, who are of the blood of such ancestor. Rule 6 provides that collateral relations of the half blood shall inherit equally with those of the whole blood, the degrees of relationship to be computed according to the rules of the common law, but this rule is subject to the proviso that if "the person last seised shall have left no issue capable of inheriting, nor brother, nor sister, nor issue of such, the inheritance shall vest in the father, if living, and if not, then in the mother, if living." These two rules were adopted at the same time (Acts 1808, c. 739), and, as they relate to the same subject or are in pari materia, should be construed together, and it was clearly intended that they should be. There is no conflict between them, as suggested by counsel of plaintiffs. They can easily be harmonized, and each be allowed its full scope and effect. Collateral relations of the half blood derive their right of descent from the provisions of rule 6. It surely was not the intention to confer upon them a greater right than upon collateral relations of the whole blood. Rule 6 was adopted, therefore, to prevent the term "collateral relations, " as used in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial