| |
|
Caswell County Genealogy
|
 |
|
 1823 - 1842 (19 years)
-
| Name |
Yancey, Caroline Louisa [1] |
| Born |
19 Oct 1823 |
Caswell County, North Carolina  |
| Gender |
Female |
| Reference Number |
3233 |
| Died |
24 Dec 1842 |
Caswell County, North Carolina |
| Buried |
Yancey Family Cemetery, Yanceyville, North Carolina |
| Person ID |
I3193 |
Caswell County |
| Last Modified |
24 Dec 2022 |
| Father |
Yancey, Bartlett, b. 19 Feb 1785, Caswell County, North Carolina , d. 30 Aug 1828, Yanceyville, Caswell County, North Carolina (Age 43 years) |
| Relationship |
natural |
| Mother |
Graves, Ann, b. 3 Dec 1786, d. 8 Apr 1855, Caswell County, North Carolina (Age 68 years) |
| Relationship |
natural |
| Married |
20 Dec 1808 |
Caswell County, North Carolina |
| Reference Number |
24470 |
| Notes |
- Marriage Record
Groom: Bartlett Yancey
Bride: Nancy Graves
Date: 20 Dec 1808
Bondsman or Witness: Azariah Graves
Source: Caswell County North Carolina Marriage Bonds 1778-1868, Katharine Kerr Kendall (1981) at 125
Marriage Record
Groom: Bartlett Yancy
Bride: Nancy Graves
Bond Date: 20 Dec 1808
Bond #: 000019407
Level Info: North Carolina Marriage Bonds, 1741-1868
ImageNum: 003071
County: Caswell
Record #: 01 358
Bondsman: Azariah Graves
Witness: Alex Murphey
Source: Ancestry.Com North Carolina Marriage Bonds, 1741-1868
|
| Family ID |
F1043 |
Group Sheet | Family Chart |
| Family |
Mebane, Lemuel H., b. 1 Aug 1816, Orange County, North Carolina , d. 1 Jul 1855, Shelby County, Tennessee (Age 38 years) |
| Married |
2 Nov 1841 |
Caswell County, North Carolina [1] |
| Reference Number |
24538 |
| Notes |
- Marriage Bond Record
Groom: Lemuel H. Mebane
Bride: Carolina Louisa Yancey
Bond Date: 1 November 1841
Bondsman/Witness: John Turner
Location: Caswell County, North Carolina
Source: Caswell County, North Carolina Marriage Bonds, 1778-1868, Katharine Kerr Kendall (1981) at 69.
|
| Children |
| | 1. Mebane, Carolina Yancey, b. 13 Dec 1842, Caswell County, North Carolina , d. 13 Dec 1842, Caswell County, North Carolina (Age 0 years) [natural] |
|
| Last Modified |
24 Dec 2022 |
| Family ID |
F1683 |
Group Sheet | Family Chart |
-
-
| Notes |
- Caroline Louisa Yancey (1823-1842)
(for larger image, click on photograph)
_______________
"Mrs. Caroline L. Mebane, wife of Lemuel Mebane died last night. She had been delivered of a child a few days ago, (born dead) and she has been lingering ever since, and on last night she died and will be buried on tomorrow at Yancy's old place."
Source: Paul A. Haralson Letter 25 December 1842.
This conflicts with her gravestone in the Yancey Family Cemetery (Yanceyville, Caswell County, North Carolina) that gives 24 March 1842 as her death date. It is possible that the stone mason made an error as the Paul Haralson letter was written contemporaneously with the death of Caroline L. Graves Mebane. And he would have been very interested in the event because his wife was related to the Yancey family. The mother of Caroline Louisa Yancey was Nancy Graves. Thus Leannah Graves Haralson and Caroline Louisa Yancey were first cousins.
See also:
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 38 N.C. 88 (N.C. 1843)
Lemuel H. Mebane v. Algernon S. Yancy et al.
From the pleadings and proofs the case appeared to be this: Bartlett Yancey died intestate in the year 1828, seized in fee of lands in Caswell County, and leaving several children, his heirs-at-law; of whom one was Caroline L., who intermarried with the plaintiff, Mebane, in 1841, and died in December, 1842, without having had issue, and under the age of twenty-one years. . . .
_______________
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 38 N.C. 88 (N.C. 1843)
LEMUEL H. MEBANE v. ALGERNON S. YANCY et al.
From the pleadings and proofs the case appeared to be this: Bartlett Yancey died intestate in the year 1828, seized in fee of lands in Caswell County, and leaving several children, his heirs-at-law; of whom one was Caroline L., who intermarried with the plaintiff, Mebane, in 1841, and died 66 *66 in December, 1842, without having had issue, and under the age of twenty-one years. Some years anterior to the marriage of Mrs. Mebane, upon a suit instituted between herself and the other heirs for that purpose, the Court of Equity decreed that a part of the land should be sold for a division, and they were sold by the Clerk and Master, and brought about $25,000. The money was subsequently paid into the office of the Master, and he was directed by the Court to lend it out at interest for the benefit of the parties in the cause; and he did so, and received for interest about the sum of $6,000, which he re-invested from time to time as opportunity offered. After the marriage of the plaintiff, to wit, in March, 1842, he took a loan of $2,500, part of the fund, and executed his bond therefore to the Master. In November, 1842, an order was made in the cause, that the Master should pay to the heirs respectively their several shares of the said fund, the payments to be made to the adults in person and to the guardians of the infants respectively; but nothing was done under the same before the death of Mrs. Mebane.
The plaintiff took administration of his late wife's estate, and filed this bill against the surviving heirs and the Clerk and Master, and therein prays his wife's share of the proceeds of the sale of the land and the interest accumulated to be paid to him, or such part thereof as he is entitled to.
The answer of the heirs insists that the whole fund is real estate and descended to them in possession; because there is nothing in the case equivalent to actual seisin, which would have been necessary to give the husband an estate as tenant by the curtesy, and because the wife was supported out of her personal estate, and not at all out of the interest accrued on this fund, which, in truth, was in no manner severed from the principal.
RUFFIN, C. J.
It is very plain that the plaintiff has no title to his wife's share of the capital; that is, of the original price for which the land sold. As administrator, he can not have it; because the proceeds of sale are, as respects infants and married women, real estate and to be secured accordingly, so that they shall go to the real and not the personal representatives. Rev. St., c. 85, sec. 7. For the same reason, he is not, as husband, entitled to the fund absolutely; nor as tenant by the curtesy, for the want of issue. If it had got into his hands, he would have been obliged to refund it to 67 *67 his wife's heirs, as things have turned out. Scull v. Jernigan, 22 N.C. 144. The decree of November, 1842, makes no difference. Being both an infant and covert, the decree would not have been binding on her, as between her and her husband, they not being opposing parties in the suit. But the decree does not cover her case in terms; for it gives no directions for the payment of the shares of the married women, and no doubt the omission was of purpose, as the act directs such shares to be invested or settled, so as to be secured to the wife and her heirs. As respects a share of the capital, therefore, the bill must be dismissed.
But we hold that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for all the interest accrued on his wife's share, after defraying her proportion of the expense of those proceedings. Regarding the original fund as realty, yet the interest is not, for that is the annual profit; and the general rule is that rents or the profits of real estate, accrued during the seisin of a particular person, go to the executor of that person, and not to the heir, nor even to one who takes by a limitation over on a contingency, which divested the estate of the first taker. Profits of land are not taken in land, but in its produce, money; and that is personalty. The profits during the marriage, vested in the husband, who has survived, and those which accrued before, belong to the plaintiff as administrator. We say they belong to him as administrator, because we can not regard the sum received by him from the Master, for which he gave his bond, as received in his own right, or in any other light than a loan. He exercised no right of ownership over the fund; not even becoming a party in the cause, as far as appears. Consequently, he succeeds to that part of the fund in his representative direction.
PER CURIAM. DECREED ACCORDINGLY
|
-
| Sources |
- Details: Caswell County, North Carolina Marriage Bonds, 1778-1868, Katharine Kerr Kendall (1981) at 69.
|
|
|
|
: Address
: Location
: City/Town
: County/Shire
: State/Province
: Country
: Not Set