Case Name: Hodges v. McCabe
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1824-06
Citations: 3 Hawks 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hodges v. McCabe.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 78–82

Head Matter:
Hodges v. McCabe.
"} i From Tyrrel. J
A levy on bind was made before the death of the owner; dower was afterwards allotted to the widow, in the land, and afterwards the Sheriff conveyed to the purchaser at his sale; held, that the widow could not have dower, because the sale related back to the levy, or teste of the writ.
Ejectment. — James McCabe was in his life-time seised in fee-simple of the premises described in Plaintiff’s declaration, and being so seised, judgment was obtained against him at January Session, 1820, of Tyrrel County Court; on this judgment execution issued, bearing teste of that term, and was levied by the Sheriff upon the premises on the 20th of "January in the same year: In February following, James McCabe died intestate, and on the 29th of March the land was sold by the Sheriff to James Hos-kins at public sale, to satisfy the execution, and in September, 1823, the Sheriff executed a deed of conveyance to Hoskins therefor: afterwards, and before the action brought, Hoskins conveyed to one Tarkinton, and Tar-kinton to the lessor of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is the widow of James McCabe, and she, after the death of her husband, and before September, 1823, exhibited her petition for dower, in the County Court of Tyrre-1, and part of the land above mentioned wras duly and properly allotted her for her dower, and of that part, ami no other, she is in possession. These facts- were found subject to the opinion of Courts if it should be that the land was subject to the Defendant’s dower, then the verdict to i)c set aside and a nonsuit entered,• otherwise, judgment to be rendered for the Plaintiff.
Badger,
Judge, who presided, was of opinion for the Defendant on the matter reserved, and directed the verdict to be set aside and a nonsuit entered $ whereupon, Plaintiff appealed to this Court.

Opinion:
Hall, Judge.
I think, in this case, the widow is not entitled to dower: the levy on the land was made before the death of the husband, and when the sale was made by the Sheriff, it related back to the levy on teste of the writ.
The reasons given by Judge Haywood, in Hay. 243, Sarah Winstead v. the heirs &c. of Richard Winstead, are, in my opinion, in point, and unanswerable, and to them I beg leave to refer.
And of this opinion, was Judge Henderson.