Superior Court of North Carolina, 1802

Neale v. . Haddock

Superior Court of North Carolina · Decided July 5, 1802 · TAYLOR, J.

3 N.C. 183

Counsel

Harris insisted that plaintiff had a right to recover. Haywood , for defendant, insisted that Sarah, were she alive, would not be entitled to recover, and of course her administrator could not.

Opinion of the Court

It is perfectly well settled that the husband is not entitled to the remainder of a chattel belonging to the wife at the time of the intermarriage. (186)

Verdict for plaintiff.

Quere de hoc.

NOTE. — See the note to Lewis v. Hines, 2 N.C. 278, and, in addition to the cases there cited, see Johnston v. Pasteur, 1 N.C. 582;Norfleet v. Harris, ibid., 517; Walker v. Mebane, 5 N.C. 41; Knight v.Leak, 19 N.C. 133; Revel v. Revel, 19 N.C. 272; Hardie v. Cotton,36 N.C. 61; Poindexter v. Blackburn, ibid., 286.

Cited: Weeks v. Weeks, 40 N.C. 120 (but under erroneous title ofBlount v. Haddock). *Page 196

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.