Pipkin Family Association

Wayne County, NC Court

State of North Carolina
Wayne County
Superior Court of Law

Actions for Trial April Term 1811

Den on the demise of Joseph Pipkin & others
VS
Roe & Henry Coor

Jury empaneled. Find the defendant Guilty and assess Plaintiffs damage to Lisehenced (sic) Subject to the opinion of the Court upon

The following case, Elisha Pipkin died Sometime Subsequent to the 31st December 1784 and previously to the 1st January 1795 Intestate Seised of a tract of land Containing the premises in dispute and leaving sons, Joseph, Elisha, Charles and James Pipkin. That the said James Pipkin died after the year 1795 but previously to the year 1808 Intestate and without issue leaving the aforesaid Joseph, Elisha & Charles his Brothers of the whole Blood and Mille & Ruth Pipkin who are his sisters of the whole Blood and leaving a half Brother on the side of his Mother John Coor. They further find that the Widow of Elisha Pipkin had Dower duly assigned her including the premises in dispute, and died after the said James Pipkin and prior to the Commencement of this Suit. If the said John Coor be not entitled as law to inherit any part of the lands aforesaid of James Pipkin then judgement for the Plaintiff and if the said John Coor be entitled at law to inherit any part of the lands aforesaid of the said James Pipkin the Judgement to be entered for the Defendant.

January Term, 1813
NC Supreme Court
NC Reports
Pgs 163-165

Den on the Several Demises of Joseph Pipkin and Others v. Henry Coor

Case of descent. Construction of the 3d clause of the act of 1784, regulating descents. It was the object of the Legislature in this clause to allow the half blood to inherit, (1) where there was no nearer collateral relations; and (2) where the brother or sister of the whole blood acquired the estate by purchase; and therefore, where A died after 1784 and before 1795, intestate, seized of lands and leaving five sons, one of whom died after 1794 and before 1808, intestate and without issue, leaving four brothers of the whole blood and a half brother on the mother's side, this half brother shall not inherit.

In this case the jury found a special verdict, stating that Elisha Pipkin died some time subsequent to 21 December, 1784, and previous to 1 January, 1795, intestate, seized of a tract of land containing the premises in dispute, and leaving sons, Joseph, Elisha, Charles and James Pipkin; that the said James died after 1794, but previously to 1808; intestate and without issue, leaving the aforesaid Joseph, Elisha and Charles, his brothers of the whole blood, and Mille and Ruth Pipkin, his sisters of the whole blood; and leaving John Coor, a half brother on the mother's side. On this special verdict the court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

Taylor, C.J. The only question presented in this case is, whether the defendant, who is a maternal brother of the half blood to the lessors of the plaintiff, shall share with them in the descent of lands of which James became seized in consequence of the death of his father; and this depends upon the true construction of the third clause of the act of 1784, regulating descents.

It seems to have been the aim of the Legislature to abolish that rule of the common law which totally excludes the half blood from the inheritance; and to allow them to inherit, (1) where there are no nearer collateral relations, and (2) where the brother or sister of the whole blood acquires the estate by purchase.

It is true that the provision of the clause under consideration is couched in very broad and general terms, which, considered by themselves, would clearly admit the half blood in every possible case. But this consideration is narrowed by the proviso, which, while it declares the intent of the Legislature, evinces the spirit in which the alteration is made in the law. The words are: "Provided, always, that when the estate shall have descended on the part of the father, and the issue to which such inheritance shall have descended shall die without issue, male or female, but leaving brothers or sisters of the paternal line, of the half blood, and brothers or sisters of the maternal line, also of the half blood, such brothers and sisters respectively of the paternal line shall inherit in the same manner as brothers and sisters of the whole blood, until such paternal line is exhausted of the half blood; and the same rule of descent and inheritance shall prevail among the half blood of the maternal line, under similar circumstances, to the exclusion of the paternal line."

It is said that this proviso describes a case where there are brothers or sisters both of the paternal and maternal half blood, and does not provide for a case where there is but one set of half blood. But certainly the spirit and equity of a law which excludes the maternal half blood in favor of the paternal, because the estate descended from the father, must under similar circumstances exclude the frater uterinus in favor of the whole blood. To give the law a different construction, we must assume the principle that the Legislature meant to place the whole blood in a more unfavorable situation than the half blood.

So that if the lessors of the plaintiff in this case were of the half blood, they would exclude the defendant by the very words of the proviso; but being of the whole blood, the land, though descending on the part of the father, must be shared equally with the defendant. This could not have been designed by the lawmakers, and, therefore, is a construction wholly inadmissible. Judgement for the plaintiff.