Taylor v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 31 December 1838
• Citation: 20 N.C. 273
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER C. TAYLOR ET AL., EXRS. OF SKELTON TAYLOR, v. GEORGE BROOKS ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

20 N.C. 273

CHRISTOPHER C. TAYLOR ET AL., EXRS. OF SKELTON TAYLOR,

v.GEORGE BROOKS ET AL.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DECEMBER TERM, 1838

Administration de bonis non.

Until the settlement and distribution of an estate the administration is incomplete and must, upon the death of the administrator, be committed to some person as administrator de bonis non of the intestate, for the goods of the intestate go to such administrator de bonis non, and not to the executor of the administrator, and this although the administrator was, as one of the next of kin, entitled to a share of the estate. The right as next of kin did not attach to any particular chattels, and prima facie the unsold and undivided specific goods were held by the administrator in his official character, and therefore his representatives do not succeed to them.

DETINUE for five slaves, tried at Stokes, on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Pearson.

It appeared in evidence on the trial that one Clackson, who resided in the State of Virginia, upon the marriage of his daughter with one Abraham Taylor, in the year 1814, put a negro woman named Amelia and her children into the possession of his son-in-law Taylor, who remained in possession of them, treating them as his own, until his death. That Clackson died in 1817, leaving a will, of which Abraham Taylor, after the renunciation of the executors therein named, was appointed administrator. That by said will the testator gave the negro woman Amelia and her children to Abraham Taylor and his wife for life, with remainder to his, the testator's, heirs. That Abraham Taylor died in 1819 intestate, and in 1823 Skelton Taylor was appointed his administrator. That in 1831 Skelton Taylor died and the plaintiffsqualified as his executors. That in 1836 Elizabeth Taylor, the widow of Abraham Taylor, sold five negroes, being part of those descended from the woman Amelia, to the defendants, who were negro traders, and who immediately after their purchase, and in the night time, run the negroes out of the State of Virginia, where all the above

transactions took place. It was also in evidence that from the death of Abraham Taylor his widow remained in possession of Amelia and her children until the sale of a part of them to the defendants. That Abraham Taylor and his wife had no children, and that Skelton Taylor, the testator of the plaintiffs, was the father of Abraham, and, according to the laws of Virginia, was the person entitled to his, Abraham's, negroes, as next of kin, his widow being entitled to one-half of them during her life. It also appeared that the defendants had notice before their purchase that the representatives of Clackson claimed the negroes under his will, subject to the life estate of Mrs. Taylor, and that they were also claimed by the executors of Skelton Taylor. A demand and refusal before suit was also shown.

The counsel for the plaintiffs read to the court the law of Virginia as to distribution of intestates' estates, and also the law of that State imposing a forfeiture of an estate for life in negroes when the tenant for life attempted to sell or otherwise run them out of the State.

His Honor charged the jury "that to enable the plaintiffs to recover they must prove that the negroes belonged to them; that if the evidence satisfied the jury that Clackson had made an absolute gift of the negroes to Abraham Taylor, and that after his death, the negroes were alloted to his widow for life as her share under the Virginia statute of distribution, and that while she thus held them for life, she made the sale to the defendants with a view, or having reason to believe, that the defendants would run them out of the State, then under the law of Virginia the life estate was forfeited, and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. That whether there was an absolute gift to Abraham Taylor or merely a loan as the defendants contended, was a question for their decision.

That a parol gift in Virginia was valid, and that by the law of Virginia, negroes being put into the possession of a son-in-law was prima facie a gift and not a loan, but that the presumption might be rebutted, and if the evidence satisfied them that it was a loan the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover; that whether the negroes were allotted to the widow as her dower right, as it was termed, after the death of Abraham Taylor, was also a question for them to decide; that if there were not such an allotment, then there was no forfeiture, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, although there had been an absolute gift to Abraham Taylor."

The plaintiffs' counsel then moved the court to instruct the jury that if there were an absolute gift to Abraham Taylor, but no allotment to his widow as her dower right after his death, and in point of fact the negroes were suffered by the administrator of Abraham to remain in the possession of the widow, subject to an allotment and division whenever he thought proper to make one, then a sale while she thus held them would

be a forfeiture of her right to a life estate in one-half, and as the other half belonged to the representatives of Skelton Taylor, as distributee of his son, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover. The court refused so to charge, because, in the first place, the evidence did not, in the opinion of the court, raise the...