Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 N.C. 350

Brown v. Brown.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 5, 1818

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1818-07-05

From Wilkes. This wras a petition filed for a distributive share of the estate of James Brown deceased, to which Defendant answered, claiming the property by virtue of a nuncu-pative will. It appeared from the record of Wilkes County Court, which made part of the case that the Court had directed to be recorded as a nuncupative will, certain affidavits, which were as follow's : State of North-Carolina, Wilkes Coimty.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1929

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1818-07-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Haix., Judge.

¶1 If wc were informed by the records of the County Court of Wilkes that the nuncupative will of James Brown had been proved in Court, and we should *351 be furnished with a copy of it properly authenticated, I think we would be bound by it j but in the present instance it seems that the County Court has admitted to record two affidavits which fall far short of establishing a nuncupative will. It is true the record speaks of them as a nuncupative will, but that does not make them one. I think we cannot view them as such, although they have been directed to be recorded, and that the petitioner has a right to recover. It does not appear that James Brown specially required cither of the witnesses to bear witness to what lie was saying $ the words he uttered were drawn from him by the person whose interest it is to establish them as a will. My opinion is that the petitioner should ■ have a decree.

¶2 Per Curiam. — Judgment for the petitioner.

/6/nc/350 · .json · Public domain