Case ID: nc_9/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "IIah;, Jndgc,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN EQUITY.
    Falls and others v. Torrance.
    From Iredell.
    Motion to dismiss a bill filed against an administrator for an account, after a lapse of thirty-seven years, disallowed ; because Complainants were infants at the time of the intestate’s death: some of them married during infancy, and were y etfemes covert; and the Defendant, moreover, had induced them, by his representations, to believe he would settle without suit.
    The bill which was filed in 1817, set forth that one Gil-braithFalls died in June, 1780, intestate, and that administration on his estate was granted in 1781, to his widow, who in 1784 married the Defendant; that the Complainants were the children of Gilbraith Falls, and at the time of his death were infants ; that some of them (the daughters) married in infancy, and were yet femes covert $ that among other property of their deceased parent taken into possession by his administratrix, was a negro woman, Flora, now the mother of several children, and that distribution of this property had never been made among Complainants. They assigned as a reason for not making earlier claim, that Torrance, the husband of the administratrix, by his declarations, induced a belief that he did not contest Complainants’ right to the pro perty, but declared that they should be distributed among the next of kin of Gilbraith Falls.
    The bill prayed that Torrance might be compelled to deliver up the property for distribution, and account for the intermediate value of the labour of Flora and her children.
    
      Gaston and Wilson moved to dismiss ; and were opposed by
    
      
      ^'eawell and Mordecai. — For Defendants were cited mYewland on Cont. 467, 479 — -1 Caine’s Cases in Mrror, o Ves. 680.
   IIah;, Jndgc,

delivered the Court’s opinion.

This case very much resembles that of Tate v. Green lee’s adm’r, decided this term.

It is a motion to dismiss the bill — thirty-five years or thereabouts, having elapsed from the death of Gilbraith Falls, Complainants’ father, until the time of filing it. It appears that at the time of Gilbraith Falls’ death, that the Complainants were infants ; that some of them, (his daughters) married in their infancy ; that their husbands are yet living. They further state, that a negro woman by the name of Flora, now the mother of several children, was part of the estate of their father; that division was never made of her amongst the distributees; and that the reason why they did not bring suit sooner, was, that they had reason to believe that Hugh Torrance, who had married their mother, who was the ad-ministratrix of their father’s estate, would have directed the said negroes to bo delivered up to them at his death, so that the bill is not brought for a general settlement only, but for a division of the negroes thus pointed out. For these reasons, we think the bill ought not to he dis missed,