Taylor v. Bostic

Decision Date31 October 1885
Citation93 N.C. 415
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSARAH TAYLOR v. G. T. BOSTIC, Ex'r.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

SPECIAL PROCEEDING, heard on an agreed statement of the facts by Philips, Judge, at Spring Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of RUTHERFORD county.

This was a special proceeding brought by the plaintiff as widow of W. W. Taylor, against the defendant as his executor, for a year's allowance out of his personal estate. The case was commenced before the clerk, and transferred by him to the civil issue docket of the Superior Court for the county of Rutherford, and was there heard and determined before Philips, Judge, upon the following state of facts agreed:

Sarah Taylor, the plaintiff, and one W. W. Taylor, were married in the year 1852, and she lived and cohabited with him until 1856, when they were divorced by the decree of the Superior Court for said county, a mensa et thoro, which was as follows:

This case coming on to be heard upon the petition and answer, former orders and findings of the jury; upon motion of counsel and with consent of the parties: It is ordered and adjudged and decreed by the Court, that the parties be, and are hereby divorced from bed and board, which shall continue until a reconciliation shall take place between them, and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the plaintiff shall have power to sue and be sued as a feme sole, and that she may, and is hereby invested with power to acquire, retain and dispose of property in her own name by purchase, gift, devise or descent, free and discharged from every and all liability whatever; and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendant pay his costs incurred in this Court in the defence of this suit to be taxed by the clerk, and that he pay the further sum of two hundred dollars to the plaintiff as alimony, in consideration of which he is hereby discharged and acquitted from all liability to maintain, support and provide for the plaintiff in future. And if necessary, let execution issue for the costs aforesaid and alimony allowed the plaintiff. It is further ordered that this decree be enrolled in the minutes of this Court.”

The parties lived separate and apart until the death of the said W. W. Taylor in the year 1883. The amount stipulated in the decree to be paid to Sarah Taylor by W. W. Taylor was paid.

W. W. Taylor left a last will and testament, in which the defendant was made his executor, and has qualified as such, and entered upon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Medlin v. N.C. Specialty Hosp., LLC
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 1, 2014
    ...under most authorities, support an appeal or writ of error. There is case authority in North Carolina for this rule. In Taylor v. Bostic, 93 N.C. 415 (1885) the trial court entered a written statement of his opinion, but no order or judgment was entered. The North Carolina Supreme Court hel......
  • Rogerson v. Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 18, 1904
    ...which are to the same effect: Commissioners v. Satchwell, 88 N. C. 1; Lutz v. Cline, 89 N. C. 186; Jones v. Call, 89 N. C. 188; Taylor v. Bostic, 93 N. C. 415; Arrington v. Arrington, 91 N. C. 301. The law does not confer upon parties who differ as to the law of their case the right to prop......
  • Dowdy v. Dowdy
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1911
    ...would lie. [1] But as no judgment was rendered, no appeal can be entertained. Clark's Code (3d Ed.) § 548, and cases cited; Taylor v. Bostic, 93 N. C. 415. [2] While the appeal must be dismissed as premature, in the exercise of our discretion, we will consider the question presented. State ......
  • Rogerson v. Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 18, 1904
    ... ... the same effect: Commissioners v. Satchwell, 88 N.C ... 1; Lutz v. Cline, 89 N.C. 186; Jones v ... Call, 89 N.C. 188; Taylor v. Bostic, 93 N.C ... 415; Arrington v. Arrington, 91 N.C. 301. The law ... does not confer upon parties who differ as to the law of ... their ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT