Tyer v. J. B. Blades Lumber Co.

Adams, J. The clerk of the Superior Court of each county has jurisdiction, within his, county, to grant letters of administration in cases of intestacy, where the decedent at or immediately previous to his death was domiciled in the county of such clerk, wherever such death may have occurred. The place of the intestate’s domicile was put in question by the defendant’s petition (Reynolds v. Cotton Mills, 177 N. C., p. 424) and was considered and determined by the clerk and by the judge on appeal. It is stated in the judgment .that although the deceased had been temporarily at work for the defendant in Craven County, he died domiciled in the county of Beaufort; and as the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence they are as conclusive as the verdict of a jury. Matthews v. Fry, 143 N. C., 384; Stokes v. Cogdell, 153 N. C., 181; In re Martin, 185 N. C., 472. The deduction that the deceased was domiciled in Beaufort County is fortified, in our opinion, by abundant authority. Reynolds v. Cotton Mills, supra; Roanoke Rapids v. Patterson, 184 N. C., 135; In re Martin, supra; Thayer v. Thayer, 187 N. C., 573. It is only in the absence of a domicile in this State that assets in the county will confer jurisdiction to grant such letters. Reynolds v. Cotton Mills, supra, p. 420. However, it appears that a part of the intestate’s personal effects were in Beaufort County at the time of his death. It follows, then, that the clerk of the Superior Court of Beaufort had jurisdiction to grant letters of administration upon the intestate’s estate. The defendant contends that the widow of the deceased had the prior right to letters of administration; but the judgment recites that she made her home in Philadelphia and for several years had not lived with her husband and children, and the plaintiff contends that for this reason she was without right to administer. Hall v. R. R., 146 N. C., 345; Boynton v. Heartt, 158 N. C., 488; C. S., 8 (2). We deem it unnecessary to consider this question. The appointment of Asbury Tyer, a brother' of the deceased, was not void, and the widow has not applied in this *271 proceeding to effect Ms removal. On tbe contrary it appears from papers on file in tbis cause tbat sbe bas no purpose to intervene or to interfere with tbe present administration of ber husband’s estate. Garrison v. Cox, 95 N. C., 353; Lyle v. Siler, 103 N. C., 262; Williams v. Neville, 108 N. C., 559. Tbe judgment is Affirmed.