{
  "id": 8688704,
  "name": "L. T. PARKS v. O. C. SILER and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parks v. Siler",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "191",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 191"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Jones Eq. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Jones Eq.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 314,
    "char_count": 4742,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.404,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4581146970191004e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8052376798801784
    },
    "sha256": "4ae6efcccbca3fcde6a675cae81203ca22acb06b6344abdcd84a5dea212808cb",
    "simhash": "1:86eae8d4c79dee97",
    "word_count": 857
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. T. PARKS v. O. C. SILER and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeaRSON, C. J.\nTbe petition was for tbe sale of land for ffhe purpose of partition. Tbe defendants object to a sale ifor partition, on tbe ground that tbe defendant Siler is tenant iby \u00a1the curtesy in one undivided moiety of tbe land ; but do mat ^object to an actual partition so that eaeb moiety may be Ibeld in severalty.\nHis Honor was of opinion that tbe plaintiff bad no right uto an order of sale and dismissed tbe proceeding. We concern\u2019 in this opinion. At the common law \u201c coparceners\u201d anight compel partition by original writ, when tbe parceners were seized of tbe land and the one was a good \"tenant to tfche praecipe\u201d; but if a freehold estate intervened as an estate '.by curtesy or other life estate, tbe writ did not lie because \u2022\u00a1there could be no tenant of tbe praecipe In the case of \u00abdower a partition could be made subject to tbe widow\u2019s ,right, he'r dower being first assigned by metes and bounds \u00a1and the partition bad with respect thereto.\nJoint tenants and tenants in common could not compel partition except by statute which authorizes tbe Court to \u2022compel partition in like manner as between coparceners.\nIt was afterwards provided by statute that tbe Court \u2022\u00a1might order a sale for tbe purpose of partition, instead of an \u00bfactual partition, when tbe interest of tbe parties would be promoted thereby. And it is provided that a widow entitled to dower may join in tbe application and receive her \u2022{third in money or a corresponding part absolutely, in lieu of .-a life estate. This leaves tbe election to tbe widow, whether -\u2022to enjoy her dower specifically by metes and bounds as a \u00a1home or to take compensation in money.\nIn regard to a tenant by the curtesy or to one entitled to ra homestead, there is no statutory provision for the plain \u00a1\u2022reason that it was presumed that persons entitled to these \u00abestates would prefer to have \u201ca house and home,\u201d and would mot elect to take compensation in money. Eor instance, one \u00abentitled to a life estate as tenant by the curtesy or as a homestead could hardly be supposed to be willing to let his. estate be sold and take compensation in its money, value. Leave your house and home and take the interest on $1,000 during life, is a proposition that would be rejected by every tenant by the curtesy and by every person entitled to a homestead.\n' The question is,-ean the Court compel them to agree to a-\u25a0sale? The Court had no such power at common law and there is no statute which confers it.\nThere is no error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed\u00bb",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeaRSON, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. A. Gilmer, for the plaintiff,",
      "No counsel for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. T. PARKS v. O. C. SILER and others.\nPartition \u2014 Tenant ly the eurtesy.\nThe Courts have'no power to order a sale of land for partition, when one, of the defendants interested therein is tenant by the curtesy and objects to the sale.\nSpecial Proceeding commenced before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Randolph County, and heard at Pall Term, 1876, of said Court, before Kerr, J.\n'William Rains died in Randolph County in 1864. Pie devised bis lands by will to his wife Milly for life, remainder to America and Caroline, his daughters.\nAmerica married the defendant, O. C. Siler. The children \u2022by. this marriage were the other defendants, N. J. Siler, W. Siler, Martha Siler (now Brooks) and Mary Siler, a minor. America (Mrs. Siler) died in 1867. One half of the lands descended to her children, subject to the life estate of 0. C. Siler. Caroline married II. B. Allen and died in 1874 without children, and thereupon the other half of the lands descended to the said children of America Siler, who were the nieces and nephews of said Caroline. Milly Rains, the wife of the devisor, died in 1876.\nThe plaintiff insisted that each of the said children was \u25a0entitled to one fourth of the whole tract of land, as tenants in common (subject to the life estate of defendant, O. C. Siler, in one-half thereof). N. J. Siler and W. Siler sold their interest in said lands to the plaintiff, who then claimed to be the owner of one-half of the land and filed a petition praying that the laud be sold and the proceeds divided .among the par! ios entitled.\nThe defendants in their answer deny the necessity of a sale for partition and allege that actual partition can be had without serious injury to the parties interested and pray the Court for an order for partition by metes and bounds.\nOn motion of the defendants, Ilis Honor dismissed the proceeding, on the ground that 0. C. Siler was entitled to a life \u2022estate as tenant, by the curtesy in an undivided half of said lands.\nMr. J. A. Gilmer, for the plaintiff,\ncited Ledbetter v. Gash, 8 Ire. 462 ; Hassell v. Mizell, 6 Ire. Eq. 892 Gash v. Led-better, 6 Ire. Eq. 188 ; Holmes v. Holmes, 2 Jones Eq. 344, and McHachern v. Gilchrist, 75 N. C. 186.\nNo counsel for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0191-01",
  "first_page_order": 203,
  "last_page_order": 206
}