IN EQUITY. From Iredell. The bill which was filed in 1817, set forth that one Gil-braithFalls died in June, 1780, intestate, and that administration on his estate was granted in 1781, to his widow, who in 1784 married the Defendant; that the Complainants were the children of Gilbraith Falls, and at the time of his death were infants ; that some of them (the daughters) married in infancy, and were yet femes covert $ that among other property of their deceased parent taken…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1828
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶2
This case very much resembles that of
Tate
v.
Green lee’s adm’r,
decided this term.
¶3
It is a motion to dismiss the bill — thirty-five years or thereabouts, having elapsed from the death of Gilbraith Falls, Complainants’ father, until the time of filing it. It appears that at the time of Gilbraith Falls’ death, that the Complainants were infants ; that some of them, (his daughters) married in their infancy ; that their husbands are yet living. They further state, that a negro woman by the name of Flora, now the mother of several children, was part of the estate of their
father;
that division was never made of her amongst the
distributees;
and that the reason why they did not bring suit sooner, was, that they had reason to believe that Hugh Torrance, who had married their mother, who was the ad-ministratrix of their father’s estate, would have directed the said negroes to bo delivered up to them at his death, so that the bill is not brought for a general settlement only, but for a division of the negroes thus pointed out. For these reasons, we think the bill ought not to he dis missed,
