Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 N.C. 78

Wallis v. . Wallis

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1863

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1863-06-05

, at tbe Pall Term, 1860, of Onslow Superior Court. Tbe plaintiff, as-the widow of James GL Wallis, was appointed by the county court of Onslow, administratrix. ’ It appeared that at the time of this appointment, she was only about seventeen years old.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1957

3 state decisions

101863187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PeabsoN, O. J.

¶1 Wo concur with his Honor in the opinion that the County Court erred in granting letters -of administration to Caroline Wallis, the widow of the intestate. As widow, she was entitled to the administration, but the Court could not grant it to her until she arrived at the age of twenty-one years, for the law presumes that before that age, she is not capable of discharging the duties of administratrix.

¶2 She did not, however, on that account lose her right, and, in order to preserve it, the Court might have granted letters of administration to some other person, d/wrante minoritate^ so that when she arrived at full age, the general administration could be granted to her. Or the Court might have granted the administration to such person as she should appoint; Ritchie v. McAuslin, 1 Hayw. 220; Pearce v. Castrix, 8 Jones 73.

¶3 In'the Superior Court, his Honor decided correctly that the appointee' was entitled to the administration; but he erred in granting the administration, instead of directing ‘a,procedendo to the county court. This was d one in Pearce v. Castrix, supra, as we find by a reference to the record, although it is not set out by the reporter, and such has been the practice since the adoption of the “ Eévised Statutes.” The county court has a peculiar jurisdiction in |he probate of .wills and granting letters of administration. It is substituted for the Court of Ordinary in England. The original will is to be filed there— *80 the returns are to be made there by executors and administrators, and the settlement of estates is to be made there.

¶4 We presume his Honor was misled by the case of Blunt v. Moore, 1 Dev. and Bat. 10. That case was decided under the acts of 1777; Laws of North Carolina, ch. 115, sec 58, which directs the Superior Court,' in case of appeals, to grant letters of administration. That provision is omitted in the Revised Statutes, and also in the Revised Code; see ch. 46, sections 1, 2, 8, chapter 4. sec. 2, chap. 31, sec. 17, from which it is evident that the letters of administration are now to be granted by the county courts, and, in cases of appeal, after deciding who is entitled to administration, the superior court should order & procedendo. Eor the error, in, this respect, the judgment is reversed.

¶5 Pee, CubiaM, Judgment reversed.

/60/nc/78 · .json · Public domain