Case Name: James Stoner and others, Complainants, vs. William Barksdale and Wife, and others Defendants
Court: North Carolina Court of Conference
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1800-06
Citations: 1 Cam. & Nor. 111
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Sumner and others, Complainants, vs. William Barksdale and Wife, and others Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 111–113

Head Matter:
James Sumner and others, Complainants, vs. William Barksdale and Wife, and others Defendants.
This was a petition exhibited in Halifax Superior Court, to obtain partition of sundry tracts of land; the Petitioners Rated they are the children and heirs at law of Josiah Sumner, dec. that William Sumner departed this life about the seventh day of May, 1784, an infant under the age of 21 years, seised and possessed of several tracts of land ; that the said William left no child living at the time of his death, or any brother or sister, whereby a certain James Sumner, and Seth Sumner, and Josiah Sumner, the father of the Petitioners, brothers, of David Sumner, the father of the said William, become heirs at law to the said William, and entitled to the lands by descent, agreeably to the acts of Assembly, in such cases made and provided, as tenants in common ; that the said Seth Sumner died without issue, that Joliah the father of the petitioners, is also dead; and that James Sumner is also dead, and devised part of the land to Creecy, the wife of the Defendant Barksdale, and the residue to his Executors, for the payment, of debts, and for other purposes.
The Defendants demurred, because it appears from the Petitioners own shewing, that William Sumner, in the petition mentioned, died on the seventh day of May, 1784, at which time, by the laws of this State then in force, the lands of the said William, dying an infant, must have defended to the eldest brother of David the father of the said William, and could not descend to all the brothers of the said David and their Representatives.
The act of the General Assembly, entitled “ An act to regulate the descent of real estates, to make provision for widows, and to prevent frauds in the execution of last wills and testaments,” under which the Petitioners claimed, was passed at a General Assembly begun and held at Hillsborough, on the 19th day of April, 1784, and was ratified the second day of June, 1784. And the question was, at what time the said act took effect, whether from the first day of the session, or from the day of the ratification.

Opinion:
By the Court.—
The only question in this cafe is, at what time the act of the General Assembly, entitled " An act to regulate the descent of real estates, to make provision for widow's, and to prevent frauds in the execution of last wills and testaments" shall take effect. This law was passed at a General Assembly, began and held at Hillsborough on the 19th day of April, 1784, and was ratified on the 2d day of June, 1784. The rule established in Great-Britain, is, that the statutes take effect from the first day of the sitting of the Parliament at which they were passed. The same rule has been held in this State with respect to what time our acts of Assembly shall take place. It has appeared ne-cessary that there should be some particular time stated and known when the acts of the General As-sembly should have effect, and the rule established in England, has been adopted in this State, and continued in use until the General Assembly passed the law in 17995 saying they should not have effect and be in force until 30 days after the rising of the General Assembly, unless otherwise expressed. William Sumner, under whom the Complainants claim, died on the 17th day of May, 1784, intestate, without any child living, and without any brother or sister. Therefore, under the rule established at the time of his death, when the acts of the General Assembly of this State are to be in force, the complainants are entitled to the prayer of their petition.