> — If the widow’s claim to a distributive share ot the crops growing on the lands of her husband at the time of his death be well founded (upon which point we shall 110 opinion) she must seek to enforce it in the way points out by the act of 1791, ch. 22. A court of Equity cannot exercise any oiiginal jurisdiction over the claim which she sets up. There is iio charge of fraud in the1 *97extcution, nor such matter of account as will authorise court to take cognizance of the case—the bill must there-tore be dismissed.
Jones v. Jones' Ex'r, 5 N.C. 96, 1 Mur. 96 (1805)
Dec. 1805
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
5 N.C. 96, 1 Mur. 96
Mary Jones vs. Willie Jones’ Ex’r.
-From Halifax.
_ _ A widow dissents husbands claims'»1 distributive crops '"devised'.08 tv against the ex r .feranac-props^ and a efthem" but íam]6 &c° Bilí dis-fheSground pT Equity1 has no on-ginai jurisdiction over the case. remedy is by'theact 1791„’„ci1, a».
Willie Jones being seized and possessed of large real and personal estates, made his last will and testament, and there-¡n ¿ev¡get| a¡| [,js Jan(]s to his two sons in severalty, some ■ ‘ *• tracts †6 Inc one and some tracts to the other, and in a subsequent, seperate and distinct clause, devised the croj)either growing or in the granaries, together witli all the residue of his personal property, to be. divided between his said two' when the eldest arrived at age. He appointed Allen Jones, Executor of his will, who after his death proved the ar,d undertook the execution thereof. Mary Jones the widow, dissented from the will and claimed a distributive ‘ ‘ • * ' ' share oí the crops growing on the lands of her husband at i?ie tinieof his death : the executor resisted the claim upon ■ *ie ground that the crops passed with the lands on which Ü*ey were growing.to the two sons under the.devices in the will. The widow filed a bill in Equity for an account and distribution of the crops, arid the case was sent to this court *'01‘ the opinion of the Judges.