{
  "id": 11276675,
  "name": "MARY DUNN, Ex parte",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ex parte Dunn",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "137",
  "last_page": "138",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 137"
    }
  ],
  "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": 160,
    "char_count": 2045,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3895584351287874e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7977217976800964
    },
    "sha256": "76aafe77c2e8eb15995a5df698a268b6de90c9965c24752de63c2e5c2aaa43b6",
    "simhash": "1:b79d677a647d14c2",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY DUNN, Ex parte."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nWhen a widow files a petition for a year\u2019s provisions, under the statute, and dies before any allotment is made, the administrator has no right to revive the petition, but it is abated. Cox, v. Brown, 5 Ire. 194.\nBefore such allotment, she has no inter est transmissible to her administrator. Kimball v. Deming, 5 Ire. 418.\nWhat amounts to an allotm ent ?\nIt is contended here, that the acts of the Commissioners, appointed by the County Court to allot and set apart a year\u2019s support for the petitioner, constituted such an allotment.\nWe cannot think so.\nTheir acts were only a part of the proceedings, necessary to obtain a year\u2019s provisions. The petitioner died before the\u2019 report was returned to Court. Upon the return of the report it was open to exception, and might have been set aside. The: allotment is not complete until the report is confirmed by the Court. There is no error.\nPER Cubiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Haywood, for the appellant.",
      "Rogers & Batchelor, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY DUNN, Ex parte.\nIf a widow who has petitioned for a year\u2019s allowance die after the Commissioners have made the allotment and before the condrmation of their report by the Court, the petition abates, and cannot be revived by her administrator.\n\u2018{Cox v. Brown, 5 Ire. 194, Kimballs v. Beming, 5 Ire. 418, cited and approved.)\nPETITION for a year\u2019s allowance, abated before Watts, J., at Fall Term 1868 of the Superior Court of Ware.\nThe petition had been filed at February Term 1868 of the County Court of Wake. Upon the return of the report of the Commissioners, at May Term, the death of the petitioner was suggested, and her executor applied for leave to become a party to the petition. The Court, however, considering that the petition had abated, refused to allow the application. Thereupon the executor appealed.\nIt was agreed that Mrs. Dunn had died after the Commissioners had made out their report.\nIn the Superior Court, at the instance of ceitain creditors of the estate, his Honor confirmed the judgment below, and \u25a0the executor again appealed.\nHaywood, for the appellant.\nRogers & Batchelor, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0137-01",
  "first_page_order": 153,
  "last_page_order": 154
}