Stewart v. Rogers, 244
Decision Date | 20 November 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 244,244 |
Citation | 133 S.E.2d 155,260 N.C. 475 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Robert D. STEWART, Administrator c.t.a. of the Estate of Worth Stewart, deceased, v. Harriet S. ROGERS. |
Richard A. Cohan, Charlotte, for plaintiff appellant.
Blakeney, Alexander & Machen, Charlotte, for defendant appellee.
The determinative question on this appeal is whether or not the marriage of the defendant to Thomas S. Rogers on 30 May 1956, is a valid marriage.
In the case of Spencer v. Moore, 33 N.C. 160, Ruffin, C. J., speaking for the Court, said:
In Spencer v. Roper, 35 N.C. 333, the same Court adopted and quoted the identical language set out above, and added: Bragaw v. Supreme Lodge, 124 N.C. 154, 32 S.E. 544; Beard v. Sovereign Lodge, 184 N.C. 154, 113 S.E. 661. The cases of Spencer v. Moore, supra, and Spencer v. Roper, supra, have been cited with approval in the following jurisdictions. Davie v. Briggs, 97 U.S. 628, 24 L.Ed. 1086; Whiteley v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 72 Wis. 170, 39 N.W. 369; Lukens v. Camden Trust Co., 2 N.J.Super. 214, 62 A.2d 886; Solomon v. Redona, 52 Cal.App. 300, 198 P. 643; Glassock v. Weare, 192 Ky. 654, 234 S.W. 216; Tobin v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (USCA 6th), 286 F.2d 480.
In Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Deal, 227 N.C. 691, 44 S.E.2d 73, this Court said: 'When in a judicial proceeding it is necessary to ascertain as a material fact whether a person is living or dead, the fact of death may be established by circumstantial evidence.
''The absence of a person from his domicile, without being heard from by those who would be expected to hear from him, if living, raises a presumption of his death-- i. e., that he is dead at the end of seven years.' Carter v. Lilley [ante], 227 N.C. 435, 42 S.E.2d 610, 612, and cited cases.
Likewise, in Fidelity Mutual Life Association v. Mettler, 185 U.S. 308, 22 S.Ct. 662, 46 L.Ed. 922, the Supreme Court of the United States approved the following instruction to the jury: 'While death may be presumed from the absence, for seven years, of one not heard from, where news from him, if living, would probably have been had, yet this period of seven years during which the presumption of continued life runs, and at the end of which it is presumed that life ceases, may be shortened by proof of such facts and circumstances connected with the disappearance of the person whose life is the subject of inquiry, and circumstances connected with his habits and customs of life, as, submitted to the test of reason and experience, would show to your satisfaction by a preponderance of the evidence that the person was dead.' (Emphasis added.)
The evidence adduced in the trial below shows a complete lack of motive on the part of Worth Stewart to disappear and abandon his business and family.
We hold that the evidence was sufficient to have supported a finding that Worth Stewart died soon after he left Jacksonville, Florida, on 26 February 1953, at approximately 11:40 a. m. He flew a small plane into weather conditions constituting a hazard to a pilot of his experience flying a plane equipped as his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitley's Elec. Service, Inc. v. Sherrod
...by competent evidence, it will not be disturbed. Young v. Insurance Co., 267 N.C. 339, 148 S.E.2d 226 (1966); Stewart v. Rogers, 260 N.C. 475, 133 S.E.2d 155 (1963). While there is language in some of the decisions suggesting that a part payment on a current account revives only those items......
- Brewer v. Elks, 248
-
Chalmers v. Womack
...upon which property rights growing out of its validity must be based.' Kearney v. Thomas, 225 N.C. 156, 33 S.E.2d 871; Stewart v. Rogers, 260 N.C. 475, 133 S.E.2d 155. Plaintiffs argue in their brief that the court abused its discretion in failing to set aside the verdict as being contrary ......
-
Mussa v. Palmer–Mussa
...Indeed, “[t]here can be no question about the performance of a second marriage ceremony in the instant case.” Stewart v. Rogers, 260 N.C. 475, 481, 133 S.E.2d 155, 159 (1963). Further, over a twelve-year period, the couple filed joint tax returns, purchased real property together, and had t......