Actions for North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh : Biddle v Carraway et al, December 1860

Email RIS file
Bookmark
Report an Issue

North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh : Biddle v Carraway et al, December 1860

Published
Raleigh, North Carolina : North Carolina Supreme Court, 1860.
Physical Description
1 online resource
Additional Creators
Adam Matthew Digital (Firm)
Access Online

Availability

I Want It
I Want It

Finding items...

Series
Summary
Samuel Biddle and William Carraway were appointed executors of the will of Snoad B Carraway who died in 1858. This bill was filed against William Carraway, the legatees and devisees. It had turned out that the large fund, not specifically bequeathed, consisting of perishable property such as crops, debts due to the testator and certain slaves, was not sufficient to cover the testator's debts and pay the general pecuniary legacies. In this unexpected state of affairs it was a question of sorting out which specific legacies should abate in order to settle the debts and whether further abatement should be made to pay the general pecuniary legacies in full, or whether there should be a pro rata contribution to divide the loss, or whether a ruling should be given that the pecuniary legacies failed due to want of funds. Were the legacies given by the testator to his wife to repair and furnish the house in Brandon in Wade county and for one year's support of herself and her family, and the legacy of [dollars] 500 given to the testator's cousin, Louisa Carraway, bequeathed in such terms as to make them a charge on the specific legacies, or were they to be regarded as pecuniary legacies. The codicil to the will reduced the amount to be paid to the wife, Sarah F Carraway, but the words out of my estate still applied. The will stated that in payment of debts at his death, first call was to made upon perishable property and then if this was insufficient, certain listed slaves were to be sold to pay the debts. It was held that the pecuniary legacies were a charge upon the specific ones and in the payment of debts the latter had to be exhausted before the former could be touched. This ran contrary to the general rule in such matters and there was a dissenting opinion written by Justice Pearson.
Subject(s)
Other Subject(s)
Reproduction Note
Electronic reproduction. Marlborough, Wiltshire : Adam Matthew Digital, 2007. Digitized from a copy held by the North Carolina State Archives.
Location of Originals
North Carolina State Archives
Copyright Note
Material sourced from the North Carolina State Archives
View MARC record | catkey: 41985467