Case ID: nc_53/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pearson, C. J. Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DELPHINA E. MENDENHALL v. JAMES R. MENDENHALL.
    Where a widow qualified as executor of her husband’s will, it was held that she could not afterwards dissent from the will and claim dower.
    This was a petition for dower, heard before Saunders, J., at Pall Term, 1860, of Guilford Superior Court.
    George C. Mendenhall died in the month of March, I860,, leaving a last will and testament in which the'petitioner, Delphina, is named as executrix. She qualified at the term of the county court next after the death of her husband, which was May term, 1860. At August term, 1860, she filed her dissent from the will. The testator died possessed of a large real estate, and this petition is filed against the' defendant as heir-at-law, and prays that she be allowed dower in said lands.
    Upon the hearing of the petition and answer, his Honor being of opinion with petitioner, gave judgment that the writ issue. Prom this judgment defendant appealed.
    
      Graham and Fowls, for the plaintiff.
    
      Morehead and McLean, for defendant.
   Pearson, C. J.

A husband dies leaving a last will and testament, in which he appoints his wife sole executrix. She offers the will for probate, and qualifies as executrix. The question is, does she by doing so, waive her right to dissent from the will ? or can she afterwards enter her dissent and claim dower, a year’s provision and distributive share as if her husband had died intestate?

This Court is of opinion that by qualifying as executrix and taking on herself the burthen of executing the will, she waived her right to dissent.

Our conclusions are based on several considerations, all or any one of which, it seems to us, are sufficient to sustain it.

The act of qualifying as executrix, and undertaking upon oath, to carry into effect the provisions of the will, is irrevocable. She cannot now renounce and discharge herself from the duties thereby assumed. This is settled law. It follows that she thereby waived any right, which she before had, which'is inconsistent with the act done and the duties assumed.

The right to dissent is inconsistent with her act of qualifying as executrix, and the duties thereby assumed in this:

1. The appointment and qualification of one as executrix, operates as an assignment in law, and vests the whole personal estate in such executor. If one executes a writing by which he appoints A B his executor, that is a will. A B thereby becomes the owner of the estate, and after paying off the debts, is, by the common law, entitled to the surplus.

If one executes a writing by which he disposes of his property after his death, without appointing an executor, that is a testament. If he does both, that is appoints an executor, and also disposes of his estate, or a part thereof, that is a last will and testament.” The executor becomes the owner of the estate, and after paying off the debts and legacies, is entitled by the common law, to the surplus. Thus, it is seen that the office of executor is deemed in law of great importance ; it draws to it the ownership, control and management of the entire personal estate, and gives a right (at common law) to the surplus. It is, therefore, manifestly inconsistent for a widow to claim the office and its rights and incidents under the will, and at the same time to enter her dissent and claim dower, year’s provision and a distributive share, as if her husband had died intestate ; in other words, there is an inconsistency in. claiming the office under the will, and' at the. same time claiming rights as if there was no will.

2. Upon qualifying, she assumes the duty and undertakes; on oath to. carry into effect the several provisions of the will,, and it is. inconsistent, afterwards, to do an act which, defeats,, or in a great degree deranges the provisions of- the. will an.d disappoints the intention of the testator- therein expressed),

3. A husband having- entire confidence in his wife, ap-. points her the. executrix of his will, an,d thereby assigns to, her the title to, and the right to control; and manage bits whole, estate; can she, in good faith, accept the. trust, apd; after-wards set up a claim adverse, and which, of necessity, pre-. vents the execution of the trust confided to, and assumed by her.

A. We will not say that a wife is called on in. the lifetime of her husband, to make known to him that she is not satisfied with the provisions of his will, for the law confers op her the right to dissent after his death ; but we do say, that if she intends to dissent, and wishes to avoid all imputation of a design to take advantage of the confidence reposed in her, she should renounce the right to qualify under the will ^ for, by doing so, she enables the court to. appoint an administrator, with the will annexed, who will represent and take care of the interest of the estate when she sets up claim to a year’s provision,, and when she claims to have her distribuí tive share allotted j whereas,, by accepting the appointment and qualifying as executrix, she gets the whole matter in her-own hands, and while undertaking to represent and take care of the interests of the estate under the will, she will be “ led into, temptation” to. take care of her own. interest against it.

Per Curiam,

Judgment- reversed and the petition,- dis-. missed,