All the daughters were entitled in common to the rent under of this Negro. B. could only pass his interest for hie to hisson-in-Uw, not that of his daughter. Neither could there be any merger ; for the estate in remainder was ntft correspondent to the estate for life, this latter belonging to the son-in-law, the former to all the daughters. Neither did his wife’s share in the remainder yest in the son-in-law who died ; for a husband is not entitled to the remainder of his wife.. Had there been a drowning of the life estate, the husband of the deceased daughter would have been entitled to her share, and the person claiming under him tenant in common with the plaintiff, and iKiuld not have been sued by them in this action*
Moye, 3 N.C. 186, 2 Hayw. 186 (1802)
July 1802
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 186, 2 Hayw. 186
Moye and others vs. —
T^ETINUE for a Negro. A. devised to B. several Negroes■ ^ for his life, and after his death, to his, B’s daughters. One of the daughters married, and B. sent the Negro in. question to live with her» His other daughters als® married, and he sea» *187 'Mmc the Negroes to live with each, a he husband of the datsgh-Ecr first married died ; then B. died, and a division took place tinder the will, leaving out She Nc-gro in question.