{
  "id": 8652094,
  "name": "EDITH ASHE v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ashe v. Camp Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-02-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "241",
  "last_page": "243",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 N.C. 241"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 292,
    "char_count": 4731,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37940262154280036
    },
    "sha256": "4257db2c12611989b75653560459eeb5b9be3dcd0d22419aa374c6d1b06a94c8",
    "simhash": "1:69d52b8e62bd3cc9",
    "word_count": 780
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:16:36.957085+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BrowN, J., dissenting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDITH ASHE v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, O. J.\nJesse Hasty, who was the illegitimate son of a white mother by a negro father, died intestate in 1888, seized of the premises. He left a widow, but no children and no brother or sister, except Henry Hasty, the illegitimate son of his mother by a white father. The dower was not allotted. The widow remarried in 1891 and removed from the premises, leaving a tenant in possession. Henry Hasty died in 1898. His heirs at law sold the timber on the land to the defendant. This is an action by the remarried widow for trespass against the defendant for cutting the timber, and otherwise. There is no question of dower, as the defendant admitted the right of plaintiff thereto and offered to submit to judgment for the allotment of dower.\nRevisal, sec. 1556, Rules 9 and 10, are conclusive of the right of Henry Hasty to inherit. The plaintiff rests her contention on the words in Rule 10, that the estate of illegitimate children \u201cshall descend accordingly in the same manner as if they had been born in wedlock.\u201d The previous words are \u201cillegitimate children shall be considered legitimate as between themselves.\u201d The sentence above quoted, which follows, uses the word \u201caccordingly,\u201d showing that the intention was in no wise to restrict the broad principle that all \u201cillegitimates\u201d have the same rights \u201cas if legitimate,\u201d between themselves, but to bi\u2019oadly reiterate it, in the most unambiguous terms.\nThe contention of the plaintiff, that as marriage between the white mother and negro father of Jesse Hasty was forbidden (Const., Art. SIY, sec. 8), therefore the descent could not be cast upon Henry Hasty because Jesse could not be treated \u201cas if born in lawful wedlock,\u201d cannot be sustained. There is no half blood between illegitimates; their descent is only through the mother. The act does not purport to validate such illicit unions. It merely regulates the descent of the realty of illegiti-mates who die intestate.\nThere is no intimation in the statute of an intention to divide illegitimates into two classes \u2014 those whose parents might have married -and those who could not. An illegitimate is nullius films \u2014 a son without a father \u2014 in the eye of the law. The law takes no notice of the status or the color of the father. The law, in such cases, traces descent only through the mother. Jesse Hasty was no less illegitimate because his parents were of different color. To hold otherwise would repeal altogether the law of descent among illegitimates as to all mulattoes, for their parents cannot legally marry. It would also repeal it in all cases where the children, whether mulatto, black, or white, are the offspring of a married man, by a woman not his wife. This would make a third class of illegitimates. It is true, that if the lawful wife die, the husband could, in some cases, marry his paramour (as was argued), but that would not legitimate the previous offspring.\nWe discover in the law no intention to divide illegitimates into several classes. All illegitimates are treated as children without a father of any kind. The law takes no notice of him, for they trace only through the mother, and for the purpose of inheriting property, the illegitimate children of the same mother are legitimate, as between themselves.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.\nBrowN, J., dissenting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mason & Worrell and W. H. S. Burgwyn, Jr., for plaintiff.",
      "Peebles & Harris and Gay & Midyette for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDITH ASHE v. CAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 February, 1911.)\n1. Estates \u2014 Illegitimates\u2014Inheritance\u2014Interpretation of Statutes.\nRevisal, sec. 1556, Rules 9 and 10, does not restrict the principle that \u201call illegitimates\u201d have the same right of inheritance as between themselves \u201cas if legitimate,\u201d but broadly reiterates the doctrine in the most unambiguous terms.\n2. Same \u2014 \u201cHalf Blood\u201d \u2014 Mother.\nThere is no half blood between illegitimates, and they take by descent only through their mother. The statute regulates the descent of the realty of illegitimates who die intestate, without reference to the father. Revisal, sec. 1556.\n3. Estates \u2014 Illegitimates\u2014Inheritance\u2014Prohibited Marriages\u2014 Races \u2014 Constitutional Law \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nThe constitutional prohibition (Art. NIV, see. 6) of marriages between the races does not affect an illegitimate brother\u2019s inheriting the estate of an intestate whose father was a negro and mother a white woman; ancl the fact that the intestate conld not be treated \u201cas if born in lawful wedlock,\u201d Revisal, see. 1556, Rules 0 and 10, has no application.\nBrown, J., dissenting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Justice, J., at November Term, 1910, of NORTHAMPTON.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in t-be opinion of the Court by Mr. Qhief Justice Glarlc.\nMason & Worrell and W. H. S. Burgwyn, Jr., for plaintiff.\nPeebles & Harris and Gay & Midyette for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0241-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 285
}