The lands conveyed to the husband alone are not to be brought into hotchpot: those conveyed to the wife alone, and a moiety of those conveyed to her and her husband are to be brought into hotchpot in making partition of the lauds of which Joseph Leech died seised.
Jones v. Spaight, 6 N.C. 89, 2 Mur. 89 (1811)
July 1811
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
6 N.C. 89, 2 Mur. 89
Richard B. Jones and Frances his wife v. Richard D. Spaight and others.
From Craven.
Bringing lands into hotchpot. A. being- seised of diverstracts of land, died intestate, leaving two daughters, B. and C, his heirs at law, B. intermarried with D, and A. conveyed to B. and her heirs, four tracts of land; to JO. and to Mo -wife B and their heirs, three tracts of land; to D. and his heirs, two tracts of land. Some of the deeds purported to be made for a small pecuniary consideration; others of them purported to be made for natural love and affection; and others for natural love and five shillings. Held, that in malting partition of the lands of which A. died seised,
1. The lands conveyed to the husband alone are not to be brought into hotchpot: but that,
2. The lands conveyed to the wife alone, and a moiety of those conveyed to the husband and -wife, are to be brought in.
This was a petition for the partition of the lands of which Joseph Leerh died seised, and it presented divers questions relative to advancements in lands, made by the parent to his or her children. The petition stated, tiiat Joseph Leech, formerly of Craven county, had died intestate, seised and possessed of divers tracts of land, therein described ,• that lie left, him surviving, a son named George M. Leech, and two daughters, the petitioner Frances, and Mary Jones Spaight, widow of Richard Dobbs Spaight, on whom descended, as his heirs at law, the lands aforesaid. That the said George M. Leech died intestate, leaving, him surviving, his two sisters, the aforesaid Frances and Mary : that Mary had since died intestate, and all her right, title and interest in the lands, descended upon Richard D. Spaight, Charles G. Spaight, and Margaret E. Spaight; between whom and tiie petitioners the lands aforesaid were to be divided in equal moieties, viz. one moiety to them and'one moiety to the petitioners. . t
That Joseph Leech, in his life-time, by deeds reciting the respective considei atiods hereinafter mentioned, did convey sundry other tracts oí laud, either to his daughter *90Máry Jones Spaight and her heirs, or to Richard Dobbs Spaight, her husband, and to his heirs, or to the said Richard and to the said Mary his wife, and their heirs : that is to say, that he, by .a deed, bearing date’ the Sd August, 1800, purporting to be made in consideration of the sum of five shillings, conveyed a tract of land containing 640 acres, on tiie west side of Pedee river, to Richard Dobbs Spaight and his heirs : by deed bearing date the 20th May, 1801, purporting to be made in consideration of the sum of five shillings, he conveyed a tract containing two hundred acres, lying in Craven county, on the south side of Neuse river, to Mary Jones Spaight and her heirs : ami by deed hearing date the 11th May, 1801, purporting to be made in consideration of the sum of forty pounds, be. also conveyed to the said Mary Jones Spaight and her heirs, a tract containing three hundred acres, lying near to the before described tract. That by deed bearing date the 18th December, 1797, and purporting to be made in consideration of the sum of twenty pounds, he conveyed to the said Hi chard Dobbs Spaight and his heirs, a tract containing one hundred acres, lying in Craven county, on the west side of Slocumb’s creek : that by deed bearing date 21st May, 1794, and purporting to be made in consideration of natural love and affection, and of the sum of five pounds, he conveyed the front of lot No. 24, and the eastern half of lot No. 25, in the town of Newborn, to the said Richard and Mary his wife and their heirs : that by deed dated 18th June, 1795, purporting to be-in consideration of one hundred pounds, he conveyed a tract of thirty acres on Trent river, to the said Richard Dobbs Spaight and his heirs : that by deed dated Sd June, 1796, purporting to be in consideration of natural love and affection and the sum of five shillings, he conveyed a tract lying near Nevvbern, to the said Mary Jones Spaight and her heirs: that by deed dated 4th January, 1797, purporting to be in consideration of natura» affection and the sum of five pounds, lie conveyed two tracts, one of 70 acres, the other of 60 *91acres, to the said Mary and her heirs: that by deed dated 12th May, 1792, purporting- to be in consideration of love and affection and the sum of five pounds, he conveyed a tract of 76 acres in Craven county, a lot in the town- of Newborn, No. 23, and the half of lot No. 25, to the said Richard Dobbs Spaight and to Mary his wife and to their heirs.
The petition then charged, that all the said lands were actually and in fact given to the said Mary Jones Spaight and her husband, by way of advancement unto the said Mary, by her father, and that the pecuniary considerations therein stated were never paid nor received,- and were only mentioned as a formal circumstance in the execution of the deeds, and that the said lands ought to be brought into, hotchpot. The petition prayed that the said lands might be decreed as advancements made unto the said Mary Jones Spaight, and be brought into hotch-pot.
The questions arising upon this petition were sent .to this Court, and were argued by Gaston for the petitioners, and by Edward Mams for the heirs of Mary Jones Spaight. - ■