{
  "id": 8687384,
  "name": "ELIZABETH WALTERS vs. CLEMENT H. JORDAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walters v. Jordan",
  "decision_date": "1851-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "170",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "12 Ired. 170"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. 170"
    }
  ],
  "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": 311,
    "char_count": 4375,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5238303468657826
    },
    "sha256": "d528764485e80549bc831520e146b2b79831c73872d5d8554ff69bb2860d0755",
    "simhash": "1:14959fe23b3d30ad",
    "word_count": 777
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:22.332414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH WALTERS vs. CLEMENT H. JORDAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": ".Ruffin, C. J.\nThe Stat. 18 Ed. I, bars-a wife of dower in her husband\u2019s lands, if she willingly leave her husband and go away, and continue with her adulterer, unless:,, the husband should become reconciled to her and suffer her to dwell with him, Rev. Stat. ch. 121, sec. 11. The counsel for the defendant admits this case not to be covered in terms by that Statute, as it is restricted to dower, and personalty is not in its purview. But it was supposed, that the 18th section ofouract, which gives the widow the right to a year\u2019s provision, does, by the use of the words \u201csuch widow,\u2019\u2019'extend the 11th section to this case and exclude from such support a widow before excluded from dower. Clearly that is not so. The 17th and 18th sections of the Revised Statutes are taken literally from an act of 1796, which is confined to making provision for the immediate support of the widow and family of an, intestate out of the crop, stock and provisions on hand. The first section, of it enacted, that until the next Court the widow might take possession of the per- . sonal estate and' use as much of those articles as might be necessary for herself and family and the second section enacted, that \u201csuch widow\u201d mights at Court petition for an allotment of the-crop, stock, and provisions for the further support of the widow and family for a year. It is apparent that the words \u201csuch widow\u201d in- the second section of the act of 1796 refers.to the widow mentioned in the preceding section \u2014 -that- is, the widow of an< intestate, leaving those articles of personal estate. It has, the same reference in the 18th section of the Revised Statutes to the. 17th section, and exactly the same sense. For, it-cannot be supposed that the words of those parts of the Revised Statute are to have a different meaning from that in which the same words were used in the original act of 1796. Therefore that phrase u such widow\u201d in. the 18th section has no relation to the-provision, in the 11th section, barring an adulteress of dower. But, if it had, it would make no difference here, because,. in truth, this petitioner is not excluded from,dower under. that section. She did not leave her husband willingly, in the sense of the act, that is, of her own accord; but she \u25a0went away by the husband\u2019s orders, which she was obliged to obey. Besides, she did not \u201cgo away and continue with her adulterer;\u201d whom, as far as appears, she never saw after her husband forced her to live separately from him. Whatever cause this woman may have given her husband for \u2022 taking steps to have the marriage dissolved, and thereby protect his estate from her claims, it is sufficient for this case, that he did no such thing, but did. leave her his widow and under no bar-to her claims, as such, on his property.\nPee Curiam. \u2022 Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": ".Ruffin, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Norwood, for the plaintiff.",
      "E. G. Reade, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH WALTERS vs. CLEMENT H. JORDAN.\n\u25a0'A widow is not barred of her rightHo her year\u2019s provision, under onr Statute, Rev. Stat. ch. 121, see. 18, by h\u2019ir adultery <&o., as she is'of her dower by \u2022 the Rev. Stat. oh. 121, sec. 11.\n.\u2022\u25a0\u2022\u00ed&ppe\u00e1l'from the Superior Court of Law df Person County,\"a\u00a1t''the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Baila presiding.\nThis is-a petition by a widow for a year\u2019s allowance out \u25a0 oMhe personal estate of hey late husband Hardy Walters, who died intestate. It came on upon appeal in the Superior Court, and the parties agreed upon the following facts. The intestate seduced the petitioner and lived in adultery with-her and then married her. After the marriage and while they were living together, the petitioner \u2014 she and her bus\u00bb band being white persons \u2014 had criminal conversation with a negro man, by whom she became pregnant. The husband discovered it and ordered the petitioner to leave his house. She did so accordingly, and by his \u00a1permission lived in another house on his premises, where she was delivered of -a mulatto child. The husband did not \u2018receive her into his family again, nor treat her as his wife,'further than to allow her to-live in the said house and to maintain her there until his death ; which happened soon after 'the birth of the child. It was submitted thereon to the Court, whether the petitioner was entitled to a year\u2019s support oruot. His Honor was of opinion, that she was, and so ordered; but allowed the administrator an appeal.\nNorwood, for the plaintiff.\nE. G. Reade, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0170-01",
  "first_page_order": 178,
  "last_page_order": 180
}