Case Name: REBECCA LAMB AND OTHERS vs. LEWIS CARROLL, Adm'r &c.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1845-12
Citations: 6 Ired. 4
Docket Number: 
Parties: REBECCA LAMB AND OTHERS vs. LEWIS CARROLL, Adm'r &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
REBECCA LAMB AND OTHERS vs. LEWIS CARROLL, Adm'r &c.
The value of an advancement is to be estimated as of the time the advancement was made, and not as of any subsequent term.
The cases of King v. Worslcy, 2 Hay. 366, Stallings v. Stallings, 1 Dev-Eq. 298, cited and approved.
This was an appeal from an interlocutory order made in the catee by his Honor Judge Caldwell, at the Fall Term 1845 of Sampson Superior1 Court of Law, overruling certain exceptions, made by some of the plaintiffs, to the report of the Commissioner, appointed to- divide the negrops, which were the subject of the petition.
John Lamb made partial advancements of Slaves to several of his children, and then died intestate, leaving other Slaves and other personal estate. Upon a petition for an account and distribution against his administrator by his widow and all his children, those who had been advanced submitting to bring their advancements into hotch-pot, it was decreed, that the Slaves should be valued and equally divided, taking into the division the several advancements ; and a Commissioner was appointed to make the valuation and division. He did so and made a report; to which the advanced children took several exceptions; which, however, only raise this question : Whether the advancements are to be valued as of the time they were made, or as of the time of the division?
Warren Winslow, for the plaintiff.
Strange, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Ruffin, C. J.
Those parties, who except, would take a very different view of their equity, if the advancements to them had consisted of female slaves, and they had been at the expense of bringing up numerous families of children from them. There is, however, no doubt of the law upon the question. It has been long settled, King- v. Worsley, 2 Hay. 366; Stallings v. Stallings. 1 Dev. Eq. 298 ; and the correctness of the rule seems to us to be evident. His Honor was, therefore, right in overruling the exceptions, and decreeing according to the report ; and his decision is affirmed with costs.
Per Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.