Dunwoodie's Ex'ors v. Carrington, 5 N.C. 469, 2 Car. L. Rep. 469 (1816)

Jan. 1816 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

5 N.C. 469, 2 Car. L. Rep. 469

Dunwoodie's Ex'ors v. Carrington.

Detinue for five negroes. A special verdict was found, stating the proofs and circumstances at great length; but the following extract is all that is necessary to a thorough comprehension of the points in the cause.

Warren the plaintiff, as executor of Dunwoodie, hired the slaves sued for two years successively to the defendant, who on the expiration of the last year, refused to restore them, testing his defence on the last will of Henry Dunwoodie, the plaintiff ’s testator, in which he devises all his property to his wife Elizabeth during her life, and after her death the negro Jude, one of those sued for and mother to the rest, to his grandson Absalom. To his grandson James, he bequeaths fifty pounds after the death of his wife, to arise out of his estate. To his son John one shilling; to his daughter Nancy one shilling; and to Sarah Grissom and his grandson John Jackson, the balance of his estate, after his wife of death.

Elizabeth the widow, after the death of her husband, lived with one John Jackson, who during her life kept Jude in his possession to her use, and at her death delivered her, together with the children born since the death of the testator, to the plaintiff. The widow died in 1809; and the years for which the negroes were hired to the defendant were 1810 and 1811. It was proved that the possession of the widow, or of Jackson for her use, was by the consent of the plaintiff.

The case was argued by Norwood for the plaintiff, and Nash for the defendant.

Taylor, C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We take it to be very clear, that, under the circumstances of this case, it is not competent in the defendant to dispute the title of the plaintiff. As between those parties, at all events, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, because his right was been admitted by the defendant and possession taken under it. That possession he is bound to restore to the person from whom he obtained it; and cannot, with any shadow of justice, consider himself a trustee for any one, who in his conception, may have a better right to the property.

As to the assent, the general rule cannot be doubted, that where a legacy is limited over by way of remainder or executory devise, the executor’s assent to the first taker will be considered an assent to all the subsequent takers or legatees. But this rule cannot prevail, where, after the death of the first taker, the executor has a trust to perform, arising out of the property, and which cannot be performed, unless the property is subjected to his control. Here several pecuniary legacies are to be raised put of the general estate after the death of the wife, and therefore at that period, all the property bequeathed to her, must of necessity return to the executor, to enable him to perform the trusts of the will; and this point was so adjudged in this Court in the case of Watson from Johnston county.