Case ID: nc_16/html/0274-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Henderson, Judge. Per. Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosamond Taylor v. John Vick et al.
    From Nash.
    Where a son who died intestate, unmarried and without issue, ¡3 bound by his agreement to support his mother, it was held, that she having succeeded to his personal estate absolutely, and to his real estate for life, had no claim against the heirs on account of their interest in the land, expectant upon her life estate, notwithstanding she had advanced the money for the purchase of that land.
    • The Plaintiff in her bill alleged, that she was the mo» ther of Samuel Winstead ,* that S. W. purchased a valuable tract of land, at the price of $2260, but being unable to make payment for it, he applied to the Plaintiff for aid ; that S. W. being the Plaintiff’s only child, she, with the view of aiding him in making payment for the land he had bought, gave up to him six slaves, valued at $1800; that in consideration of the surrender by the Plaintiff of the negroes, S. W. promised to support and maintain her during her life; that afterwards S. W. for his own convenience, and to aid in making payment for the land bought by him, sold the dower of the Plaintiff in the real estate of her last husband, Drury Taylor, for the sum of $300, and applied to the. Plaintiff to execute, a deed to the purchaser, which she refused, unless S. W. would agree to convey to her the land which he had bought, and to which he assented ; that S. W. died intestate, unmarried and without issue, and without having in any respect complied with his engagements to the Plaintiff, to convey to her the land bought by him. The prayer was for a specific performance of the agreement to convey the land.
    The Defendants, who were the heirs of Samuel Win* stead, denied the agreement set forth in the bill; relied apon the act of 1819, concerning parol contracts for the sale of lands ; and insisted that the Plaintiff having succeeded to all the personal estate of their ancestor, which ■»at) large and valuable, am! being entitled to a life estate ím bis land, liad no claim whatever, to a support out of the assets which descended to them.
    Replications were Sled to the answer, and it was heard opon the proofs taken, which it is not necessary to set ?K'tis.
    
      Btvcrcux for the Ps.k.hi.T,
    
      Badger for the Defendants,.
   Henderson, Judge.

— The Plaintiff, however muck to be pitied, for in justice she is entitled to the whole estate of her son, real as well as personal, in preference to a remote collateral heir, and the more espe cially iu this case, as she furnished most of the funds with which the lands were purchased, yet has no grounds on which she can stand. For we are clearly of opinion, that the promise of support satisfied the transfer of the slaves j and if it did not, she has the whole personal estate as her own, wherewith she may satisfy it. At least that forms no ground of relief in this bill. And «as to the agreement to convey to her the lands in question, in consideration of her selling for the son’s benefit. her dower in her late husband’s lands, we are well satisfied, fiom the testimony, that nothing more was in* tended than a life estate, a home for life ; and that also she has got, for on her son’s death without issue, and without brother, sister or father, the lands descended on her for life.

Per. Curiam.

— Let the bill be dismissed with costs-