{
  "id": 11275399,
  "name": "Mary Jones vs. Willie Jones' Ex'r",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Jones' Ex'r",
  "decision_date": "1805-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "96",
  "last_page": "97",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mur. 96"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 N.C. 96"
    }
  ],
  "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": 192,
    "char_count": 1895,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.423,
    "sha256": "623005b1b13fe5eb6b7d471df0001b96f62ed4b26befba7603dd86c1f25d3bb9",
    "simhash": "1:3659f8ef87332228",
    "word_count": 341
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:58.494236+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Jones vs. Willie Jones\u2019 Ex\u2019r."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "By the Court.\n> \u2014 If the widow\u2019s claim to a distributive share ot the crops growing on the lands of her husband at the time of his death be well founded (upon which point we shall 110 opinion) she must seek to enforce it in the way points out by the act of 1791, ch. 22. A court of Equity cannot exercise any oiiginal jurisdiction over the claim which she sets up. There is iio charge of fraud in the1 extcution, nor such matter of account as will authorise court to take cognizance of the case\u2014the bill must there-tore be dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "By the Court."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Jones vs. Willie Jones\u2019 Ex\u2019r.\n-From Halifax.\n_ _ A widow dissents husbands claims'\u00bb1 distributive crops '\"devised'.08 tv against the ex r .feranac-props^ and a efthem\" but \u00edam]6 &c\u00b0 Bil\u00ed dis-fheSground pT Equity1 has no on-ginai jurisdiction over the case. remedy is by'theact 1791\u201e\u2019\u201eci1, a\u00bb.\nWillie Jones being seized and possessed of large real and personal estates, made his last will and testament, and there-\u00a1n \u00bfev\u00a1get| a\u00a1| [,js Jan(]s to his two sons in severalty, some \u25a0 \u2018 *\u2022 tracts \u20206 Inc one and some tracts to the other, and in a subsequent, seperate and distinct clause, devised the croj)either growing or in the granaries, together witli all the residue of his personal property, to be. divided between his said two' when the eldest arrived at age. He appointed Allen Jones, Executor of his will, who after his death proved the ar,d undertook the execution thereof. Mary Jones the widow, dissented from the will and claimed a distributive \u2018 \u2018 \u2022 * ' ' share o\u00ed the crops growing on the lands of her husband at i?ie tinieof his death : the executor resisted the claim upon \u25a0 *ie ground that the crops passed with the lands on which \u00dc*ey were growing.to the two sons under the.devices in the will. The widow filed a bill in Equity for an account and distribution of the crops, arid the case was sent to this court *'01\u2018 the opinion of the Judges."
  },
  "file_name": "0096-01",
  "first_page_order": 92,
  "last_page_order": 93
}