{
  "id": 8695352,
  "name": "WILLIAM C. MOORE'S ADMINISTRATOR vs. ERI BARROW'S EXECUTOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore's Administrator v. Barrow's Executor",
  "decision_date": "1842-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "436",
  "last_page": "439",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Ired. 436"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. 436"
    }
  ],
  "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": 386,
    "char_count": 6648,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.940510105129326e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46213176907225095
    },
    "sha256": "09849b25a60e879f2cae89805ae86bcb0522734ee318c4df840fff616482fb7d",
    "simhash": "1:a6a46a455047faef",
    "word_count": 1161
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:08.889044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM C. MOORE\u2019S ADMINISTRATOR vs. ERI BARROW\u2019S EXECUTOR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, C. J.\nE. Barrow died in 1832, having made his will,and, amongst other things, bequeathed as follows: \u201cI lend my daughter, Nancy E. Moore, the following property, to wit, negroes Lewis, Huldy, Baker, (and nine others by name) and one bed and furniture (and sundry other articles of furniture.) If my daughter, Nancy E., should depart' this life without issue, then it is my will, that her husband, William C. Moore, should have one half of the prop\u00e9rty I have lent to her; but the property is to be held in trust by my executors until the death of my daughter, Nancy E.; and then her half of the property is to be equally divided: between her brother Joseph and her two sisters, Martha and Rachel.\u201d The testator appointed as his executors his said son Joseph, and John Mardree aud Alfred S'. Barrow, who were the husbands of the daughters, Rachel and Martha, respectively; and all those persons and WilliamG. Moore and his wife Nancy E. survived the testator.\n- In the life-time of the testator the sl\u00e1ve, Baker, died, and Huldy was by him sold. But upon his death the other ten negroes and their increase, and the other chattels bequeathed, were placed by the executors in the possession of Mr. Moore, to be held under the executors upon the trusts of the-will.\nIn 183S William C. Moor\u00e9 died intestate, leaving: his wife Nancy E. surviving him;' but she also died in 1839, having madte a will, and thereof appointed her said brother Joseph the executor, and left surviving her, the said Joseph and her sisters, Martha and Rachel. Upon the death of Mrs. Moore, Joseph Barrow,-and John Mardree and Alfred S. Barrow\u2014 the two latter of whom claimed in right of their\u2019wives\u2014 claimed all the slaves and other property as theirs, and divided itinto three parcels accordingly, which they now severally hold. The present plaintiff is the administrator of the intestate, William C. Moore, and instituted this suit by petition in the County Court against those persons who thus have possession of the slaves, and are also the executors of the original testator, E. Barrow, and prays therein to be declared entitled, under the disposition to his intestate,' to one half of the slaves, and of the other property bequeathed as aforesaid, in trust for his wife, and of the increase thereof, and of the hires since the death of Mrs. Moore; and to have a division, account, and payment.\nThe defendants respectively answered, substantially ad-fitting the case here stated, but insisting that the plaintiff was not entitled, as his intestate died before his wife, and tjjat having survived her, were entitled to the whole.\nIn the County Court the petition was dismissed, but on appeal to the Superior Court the decree was reversed, and a declaration made, that the plaintiff was entitled according to the prayer of the petition, and commissioners appointed to divide and allot to the plaintiff his half part of the negroes and their increase, and other specific articles, and an enquiry directed as to the profits, and as to the value of any part of the property that might have been sold by the defendants. But from that interlocutory decree the court allowed the defendants to appeal to this court.\nThe decree, we think, proceeds on the proper construction of the will, which seems, indeed, to be very plaiu.\nThe limitation over, after the death of the first taker \u201c without issue,\u201d is within the letter o\u00ed the act of 1827, (ReV. Stat. c. 122, s. 11,) and is made effectual by it.\nIt may be granted as highly probable, that the testator expected his daughter\u2019s husband to outlive her, and, in that expectation it was, that he gave to him one half of the property, as a personal benefit, upon the death of the wife without leaving issue. We can readily believe, that, if Mr. Barrow had thought of the case of their having no children, and of Mr. Moore\u2019s dying before Mrs. Moore, he would have limited the property to his own children, and not to Mr. Moore, for the sake of vesting it in an administrator for the benefit of the son-in-law\u2019s creditors, or next of kin. But this is conjecture only; and on it the will is not to be altered by the introduction of another contingency, besides that expressed by the testator. The gift over to the husband, brother, and sisters o\u00ed Mrs. Moore, is, simply, on the contingency of her \u201c dying without issue;\u201d and it is not to him or them \u201cif then living,\u201d or \u201cto such one or more of them as might be then alive.\u201d Consequently, as Mrs. Moore never had issue, and is now dead, the legacy has become absolutely vested. That contingent interests of this description are transmissible to executors, and are not lost by the death of the person before the event happens, on which they are to vest in possession, though once doubted, has long been settled. King v Withers, Cas. Temp. Talb. 117. Purefoy v Rogers, 2 Saund. 288. e. note.\nIt must, therefore, be certified to the court below, that this court perceives no error in the decree; and the appellants must pay the costs in this court.\nPer Curiam, Ordered accordingly;",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. Moore and Iredell tor the plaintiff.",
      "Badger for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM C. MOORE\u2019S ADMINISTRATOR vs. ERI BARROW\u2019S EXECUTOR.\nA devised as follows: \u201c I lend my daughter, Naney E. Moore, the following property, to wit, negroes Lewis (and eleven others mention\"ing them by name) and one bed and furniture (and sundry other articles of furniture.) If my daughter Naney E. should depaTt this life' without.issue, then it is my will that her husband, William C. Moore, should hay,e one half of the property I have lent to her; but the property is to be held in trust by my executors until the death of my-daughter Nancy E., and then' her half of the property is to be equal- ' ly divided between her brother Joseph and her two sisters Martha and Rachel.\u201d William O. Moore died, after the testator, leaving his wife Nancy surviving him, and then Nancy died without issue. Held that Wm. C. Moore took a contingent interest in remainder in one half of the property, which upon his death was transmitted to his admiras-, jtrator, and that upon the death of Mrs, Moore, without issqe, his ad\u00bb fnipistrator had a right to recoycr it,\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Perquimons county, at Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge Manly presiding.\n\u2022 This was a petition originally filed in the County Court of Perquimons, and brought thence by appeal to the Superior Court \u2014 where a decree was rendered in favor of the petitioner, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nThe substance of the pleadings, the facts, and the questions presented, are sufficiently set forth in the opinion delivered in this court,\nA. Moore and Iredell tor the plaintiff.\nBadger for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0436-01",
  "first_page_order": 436,
  "last_page_order": 439
}