Currituck County Miscellaneous Estates

Henry Ballentine 1795
[see the 1791 Henry Ballentine will here]

Page 1
BALLENTINE et al}
          vs                    }    In Error
  
POYNER et ux      }

     At the aforesaid term of the aforesaid Court before the Honorable John WILLIAMS & John HAYWOOD Esquires Judges thereof came Joseph BALLENTINE, Davy BALLENTINE, and Henry BALLENTINE by their attorney & say that in the record and process and also in the order or decree on the petition aforesaid made by the Justices of the Court of  Pleas and Quarter Sessions held for the County of Currituck at the May term thereof in the year of our Lord 1793 it is manifestly erred in this that whereas by an act of Assembly passed at Hillsboro & in the year of our Lord 1784 it is enacted that if any person die Intestate or shall make his Last Will & Testament and not there in make any express provision for his wife by giving and devising to  her such part or parcell of his real or personal Estate as shall be fully satisfactory to her, such widow may signify her dissent thereto before the Judges of the Superior Court or in the County Court of the County wherein she resides, in open Court, within six months after the probate of the sd Will, and then in that case, she shall be entitled to dower: Nevertheless the Justices of the sd Court did at the aforesaid  term thereof order a Jury to lay off the dower of the Widow of the aforesaid Henry BALLENTINE deceased although she not only did not dissent from the Will of her said deceased Husband within 6 months after the probate of the

Page 2
Same, but did on the contrary declare that she was fully satisfied therewith, and intended to stand to and abide by the same and hath accordingly continued in the full & quiet possession of all and singular the property thereby bequeathed and devised.
    
There is also manifest error in this that whereas by an act of the General Assembly of this State passed at Newbern in the year of our Lord 1791 it is enacted that when a "widow has by virtue of the power to her given by the before recited act, signified her dissent from her Husbandís Will, and the Sheriff in consequence thereof & by order of the Court for that purpose made shall allot and set off to each Widow her dower of her said Husbandís lands, it is hereby declared to be the duty of the Jury so summoned, in the first place to enquire whether by the will the widow is at conveniently and comfortably provided for, as if her dower was to be allotted to her, according to the sd Act & they shall be of opinion that she is so provided for, they shall make return of the same, by which return the Widow shall be precluded from any further claim upon her Husbandís lands, except such only as are devised to her by the Will" nevertheless the Jury so as aforesaid summoned, not regarding the sd Act have not inquired whether the Widow was so as aforesaid provided for, nor have they as at all taken the aforesaid Will of the deceased Husband into their consideration.
     /s/ Jno. BROWN Att. For the Pltf in error

Page 3
BALLENTINE et al}
          vs                    }    Assignment of Errors
  
POYNER et ux      }

State of North Carolina
     Know all men by these Presents that we Joseph VALENTINE [sic] Thomas MERCHANT & Jesse PERRY all of the County of Currituck and State aforesaid are held & firmly Bound unto Robert POYNER & Mary his Wife in the just & full sum of Fifty Pounds to be paid to the said Robert POYNER & Mary his Wife, their Heirs Executors or Administrators or the Heirs, Executors or Administrators of the Survivor of them, to the which payment well and truly to be made and done We Bind Ourselves, Our Heirs, Executors & Administrators jointly & severally firmly by these presents Sealed with our Seals and date the thirteenth Day of October in the year 1795.
     The Condition of this Obligation is such that whereas the above Bounden Joseph VALENTINE  hath the day of the date of these presents obtained from the Superior Court of Law for the District of Edenton a Writ of Error to remove the proceedings lately had before the Justices of the County Court of Pleas & Quarter Sessions for the County of Currituck in a certain suit by Petition wherein the said Joseph VALENTINE & Davis VALENTINE were Petitioners and Mary VALENTINE, now Mary the wife of the said Robert POYNER, was Defendant Now if the said Joseph VALENTINE his Heirs Executors of Administrators shall prosecute his said Writ of Error with Effect or in Case he shall fail therin shall & do well & truly pay or Cause to be paid unto the said Robert Poyner & Mary his Wife all such Costs & charges as shall be Awarded against him by the Judgm. Of the said Superior Court of Law then this Obligation to be Void else to remain in full force & effect.
     /s/ Jos. BALLENTINE    seal
         Thos. MARCHANT    seal
         Jesse PERRY              seal

Signed Sealed & Delivered In Presence of
     /s/ Will BLAIR

Page 4
Currituck 3d September 1795
Mr. Robert POYNER

Sir
     In the notice that I shall move their Honors the Judges of the Superior Court of Law for the District of Edenton, at the next Term of the said Court (to wit at October Term) for a writ of error to revese an order of the Justices of the County Court of Currituck County directing a Jury to lay off the dower of Mary BALLENTINE in the Land of Henry BALLENTINE her deceased Husband which order was made at the August term of the said Court which happened in the year 1794.
     /s/ Jno BROWN atty for the heirs of Henry BALLENTINE deceased

Page 5
Superior Court of Law}   October Term 1795
     Edenton District     }

     Joseph BALLENTINE maketh oath that some time in the month of March in the year of our Lord 1793 his Father Henry BALLENTINE departed this Life, after having made his last Will & Testament whereby he hath made a very handsome provision for his Widow & relict Mary BALLENTINE who hath since intermarried with a certain Robert PINER [sic] the said Henry having by his said will bequeathed to the said Mary a very considerable portion of his personal Estate consisting of a great variety of household & Kitchen furniture & stock together with sundry negroes as will appear from an attested copy of the said will which this deponent is ready to produce to this Honorable Court. This deponent further deposeth that the said Mary hath always been & now is in possession of the property so as aforesaid bequeathed deposeth that the said Henry did in & by his said will, among other things, give & bequeath unto this deponent & his Brother Davis BALLENTINE the

Page 6
Tract of land whereon the said Henry BALLENTINE the Father of this deponent formerly lived & usually resided to be equally divided between them as also one other tract of Land to Henry BALLENTINE the youngest Brother of this deponent, deposeth that at the County Court of Currituck County in the District aforesaid which just happened after the death of the said Henry viz. at the May Term thereof the will of the said Henry BALLENTINE was proved in due form of Law by this deponent who is thereto appointed an Executor and that although the aforesaid Mary BALLENTINE ( alias PINER) widow & relict as aforesaid hath never in any wise signified her dissent from the aforesaid will of her Husband agreeable to the act of Assembly in such cases made & proved, but on the contrary hath declared in full approbation of assent to the same & hath in fact ever since the decease of her said Husband continued in possession of all & singular the legacies bequeathed to her by the aforesaid will of her said Husband

Page 7
(As this deponent hath above stated) nevertheless the County Court of Currituck did at the aforesaid Term thereof to wit at May term in the year 1793 order a Jury to go on the aforesaid Tract of land so as aforesaid ___ied to this deponent & his said Brother Davis BALLENTINE in consequence whereof the Sheriff of the said County did summon a Jury who laid off & allotted to the said Mary her dower out of the said tract and a return of the proceedings of the said Jury was accordingly made to the following term of the said county Court of Currituck as may move fully  appear from the records thereof. Further then sayeth not.
     /s/ Jno BALLENTINE

Sworn to in Open Court Oct. 14th 1795
     Test. Will BLAIR Clk

Page 8
Superior Court of Law}  SS
    Edenton District      }  October Term 1795

Henry BALLENTINE's Heirs   } Petr for Davis & Order of the County Court thereon
                  vs                              } Errors Assigned
Henry BALLENTINE's Widow}

     At the aforesaid Term of the aforesaid Court before the Honorable John WILLIAMS & John HAYWOOD Esquires Judges thereof came Joseph BALLENTINE, Davis BALLENTINE and Henry BALLENTINE, by their attorney and say that in the record and process and also in the order _____ decree on the petition aforesaid made by the Justices of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions held for the County of Currituck at the May Term thereof in the year of our Lord 1793 it is manifestly erred in this that whereas by an act of assembly passed at Hillsboro in the year of our Lord 1784 it is thereby enacted that if any person die intestate or shall make his last will & Testament & not therein make any express provision for his Wife by giving and devising to her such part or parcell of his real or personal estate as shall be fully satisfactory to her, such widow may signify her dissent thereto before the Judges of the Superior Court or in the County Court of the County wherein she resides, in open court, within 6 months after the probate of the said will, & then & in that case, she shall be entitled to dower nevertheless the Justices of the said Court did at the aforesaid term thereof order a Jury to lay off the dower of the Widow of the aforesaid Henry BALLENTINE deceased although she not only did not dissent from the will of the said deceased Husband within 6 months after the probate of the same, but sis on the contrary declare that she was fully satisfied there with & intended to stand to & abide by the same, & hath accordingly continued in the full & quiet possession of all & singular the property thereby bequeathed and devised.
     There is also manifest error in this that whereas by an act of the General Assembly of this State passed at Newbern in the year of our Lord 1791 it is enacted that when a

Page 9
Widow has by virtue of the power to her given by the before recited act, signified her dissent from her Husbandís will & the Sheriff in consequence thereof & by order of the Court for that purpose made shall allot & set off to such Widow her dower of her said Husbands lands, it is hereby declared to be the duty of Jury so summoned in the first place to enquire whether by the will the Widow is as conviently & comfortably provided for, as if her dower was to be allotted to her according to the said act & they shall be opinion that she is so provided for, they shall make return of the same, by which return the Widow shall be precluded from any of further claim upon her Husbandís lands, except such only as are devised to her by the will; nevertheless the Jury so as aforesaid summoned, not regarding the said act, have not inquired whether the Widow was so as aforesaid provided for, nor have they at all taken the aforesaid will of her deceased Husband into their consideration.
     /s/ Jno BROWN atty for the Pltf In Error

[SOURCE: Manuscript and Archives Reference System (MARS); Edenton District Superior Court Estates Records 1756-1806; MARS ID: 398.6.30 (Box)]

Transcribed by Judy Brickhouse

© 2006  Kay Midgett Sheppard