Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 N.C. 67

Mayow's case

Decided July 1, 1793

GULIELM TUMPLIN, being possessed of divers chattels, died intestate, and administration was committed to Mayow, who was his maternal uncle; afterwards Thomas Tumplin endeavoured to obtain a revocation of the administration in the arches; but is was there confirmed. Afterwards he appealed to the King in Chancery, who refered it to the Commissioners Delegates: and the reason which Serj.

Decided 1793-07-01

Doderidge, J.

¶1[to the counsel of Mayow.] You have had administration granted to you, arid the other party J. F. appeals because, he says, you suppress a will: and the matter remains undiscussed, and perhaps you are a proper person to be administrator of executor here. If the eldest son ousts his mother at the time of the death of his ancestor, and the youngest son enter, he is not accounted a disseisor, for the law presumes that he preserves the possession for his brother. But if, when the eldest brother returns, he keeps possession, the law will not have so good an opinion of him, and he is a disseisor. No prohibition was granted. Palm. 416. Bulst. 314.

/1/nc/67 · .json · Public domain