The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-24

I'm re Years Allowance of Irene L..
stewart. appellant. from Stokes. Al
tirmed.
Inc appellant is the widow of Frank
p. Stewart, who died leaving a viii N
which he bequeathed his entire estate
to his oldest daughter. Maud S. Hay
wood, whose husband qualified as ad-
mInistrator cum testamento annexo
and took charge of the estate. The
WIDOW of the decedent was at that
time i'll at the home of her mother
in another county. At the time of
the death of Stewart there lived with
him two children under Is years of
age of former marriage
whom the administrator took
dissented from the will and claimed
the years allowance. The admnistrd-
tor wrote to the widow and proposed
to paw her $500 if she would take ana
care for her two step-chiidren for one
year. This she refused, the allow
f.nce was granted her by a j. F.,
the administrator appealed and the
court fixed the allowance of the
widow at $500 and allowed the adj
minstrator 500 each for the years
support of the children. of whom he
had qualified as -'ardian.
Held Section 3061 of the Revised
Statutes (Code 211S) providing $500
for the widow and 500 in addition
thereto for every member of the fam
lily besides the widow and section
1862 Revised Statutes (Code 2219) de-
filming the family as every person to
whom the deceased or widow stood III
place of a parent. who were resid-
ing with the deceased at his oath and
did not then exceed 5 pears is not for
the benefit of the widow personally
beyond the $500, the 500 for each
child being to enable her to support
such children as are living with and
dependent upon her for the one year
period
2. Where membership in the family
ceases at the death of the father (as
in this case by refusal of the widow
to take and care for the chIldren) it
cannot be made the basis for determ-
lining the amount of the widows year S
allowance and the 500 designated by
the statute as allowance for each
member of the family under 5 years
of age must be devoted to their in
dividual support.
Dinah Caiuweil vs.. Life Insuranc
Company CT Virginia. appellant,
from Meclllenburg. Affirmed.
Hialntif is an ignorant colored Wo-
man, cook at the Buford Hotel in
Charlotte. She alleges that she was
induced by the defendants agent to
be written up on the representation
that at the end of ten years she could
draw out. After paying weekly in
stallments for ten years she learned
that representations made to her were
false. The defendant demurred and
introduced no evidence and jury found
for the plaintiff.
Held; That. where the court strong
ly charged the jury that the evidence
as to fraud must be clear, strong
permitting the jury to pass on the
evidence Of the plaintiff notwithstand-
ing the fact that it was admitted that
the policies contained no SUCH provis-
ion as that she alleged had Ueen
promised hcr.
2. That in charging the jury thai
the plaintiff could not rely on a fraud
of the agent when Sf1e had notice OF
the fraud and continued to pay the
premiums unless she had been luiled
into security or had paid the pre-
miums under protest. there was no
error in the last clause of such charge
where the evidence was that plaintiff
had found that there was something
wrong with the policies and made
many visits to agents who put her
off and sent her to see other agents
until the policies were finally cancelled.
g. In such cases the measure of
relief to be awarded the plaintiff is
the amount of money paid in. with
interest
state appellant. vs. Monroe JOhDstOn,
from Mcclllenbur@.n Reversed.
Defendant. in the city of Charlotte
where the SAFE of liquor is prohibited,
agreed to bring from Salisbury, where
such sale is permitted and deliver TO
a person i'm Charlotte a half gallon
of whiskey and received the price ana,
in pursuance of his agreement, did
so deliver the whiskey the next morn
ing being paid nothing, towards rail-
road fare or expenses to Salisbury:
Held: That the facts constituted a
sale of whiskey by the defendant in
Charlotte and the court below erred
in not adjudging MIN utility.
j. Nj. Cavincss. administrator. vs.. Hi
deity and Deposit Company of
Maryland. appellant. from Randolph
Affirmed.
Plaintiff as administrator lie bOnis
non sued the former administrator
of the estate and the surety on his
bond to recover for deVaStaVt. De-
PENDANT surety company alleged, in its
answer that the former administrators
paid to one Russell out of the assets
of the estate SIS, 900 for certain stocks.
bought by such administrator and his
brother who were distributes of the
estate, Russell knowing the source
from which the payment was made.
The surety company claimed to be
subrogated to the rights of the plain
tiff to have Russell refused so mucn
of said amount as should be neccs-
sary to indemnify it from loss on
account of the devastavit of the adj
ministrator The $4,000 paid to Russell
for the stock was within three months
after the qualification of the admins
traitor and was more than the distribu-
tive shares Of the administrator and
his brother subsequently, the admin.
istrator paid other sums to himself
and brother also in excess of their
shares. but this was without the
knowledge of Russell.
Held: That the payment by an ad-
ministrator to a distributee of his
share in an estate within d year of
qualification is not. in Itself. devas-
tavit if there are no debts or other
exigencies requiring the retention of
the funds and if such payment is not
in excess of the share to which dis
tributee is entitled.
2. That the defendant company is
entitled to be subrogated to plaintiffs
rights against Russell to the extent
to which the $4,000 was in excess of
the distributes shares of the admin
istrator and his brother.
3. That Russell having no knowl-
aHcr 8 hpnpfitS.