Individual Details

Elijah Morton of Caswell Co NC was the son of Meshack Morton who had come to Caswell from Prince Edward Co. Meshack had a number of children - not all definitively identified. Several Mortons were present in Prince Edward Co that could have been kin to Meshack. Elijah is said to have owned the local Racetract which opened in 1825 near Leasburg. He had five Arabian stallions known as "Morton's Bays".

Will of Elijah Morton
Caswell County Court 1875
I Elijah Morton, being of sound mind and memory and calling to mind the uncertainty of Life do make publish and declare my last Will and Testament as follows:
My desire is that all just debts and funeral expenses be paid and all my other property, Money and estate be divided between my four children, Vincent L. Morton, Phoebe L. Stanfield, Maranda R. Love and Barbara Baynes I hereby appoint my son Vincent L Morton my executor to this my Last Will and Testament.
Signed and acknowledged in the presence of this 21st day of January 1869.
Elijah Morton (Signed)
William Paylor Jr.
A. W. Graves

Record of Wills Caswell County Page 173
Vincent L. Morton being sworn, doth say that Elijah Morton late of said county, is dead, Having first made and published his last Will and Testament and Vincent L. Morton is The executor named therein. Further that the property of the said Elijah Morton Consisting of Lands, Goods, Chattels, Bonds, and Monies, is worth $4000.00 so far As can be ascertained at the date of this application and this V. L. Morton, Phoebe L. Stanfield, Maranda R. Love and Barbara H. Baynes are the parties entitled under said Will to the said property.
V. L. Morton (Signed)
May 1875
G. H. Kerr


Posted on Caswell Mail List; Dec 2010:

Love vs Love Court Case 1848
This N. C. Supreme Court Case involves the descendants of John Love of
Caswell County and his Will of 1844. His executor was John C. (Calvin)
Love, husband of Maranda Morton, daughter of Elijah Morton and Mary Lea.

The participants involved as far as I can tell are:
John C. Love m. Maranda Morton--May-15-1839 C.C.
Robert Love m.Sarah Moore-- Dec-12-1833 C.C.
Elizabeth Elmira Love m. John McKissack--Aug. 23 1830 C.C.
Sarah "Salley" Love m. Marmaduke Kimbrough Nov 30 1818 C.C
Mary Love m. Samuel Love Jr. July 18 1828 C.C.(Son of Samuel Love
d.1829, brother to John Love who wrote the will in question)
Martha Love, daughter of Samuel Love Jr.
Margaret Love and Benjamin D. Purley? ( I have a Margarett Love
m.Benjamin Morrow
29 Jan 1828 C.C.)

Cases In Equity Argued and Determined In
The Supreme Court Of North Carolina
>From December Term 1847 to
December Term 1848
By James Iredell Volume 5

June Term 1848 Page 201 Hon. William H. Battle, Supreme Court Judge,
Presiding
ROBERT LOVE vs. JOHN C. LOVE & AL.

In a will the grammatical construction must prevail, unless a contrary
intent plainly appears.
A bequest of a negro woman and her increase, without any explanatory
words, will not entitle the legatee to a child of the woman, born before
the testator's death. But if there be any expression in the will,
showing an intention on the part of the testator, that the child, so
born, shall be included in the gift of the mother, then the legatee
shall take it: as where, in such a bequest, one of the children of the
mother is expressly excepted, this shows the intention of the testator
that the legatee should take all the children, except the one excepted.

The cases of Jones v. Posten, 1 Ired. 171, and Stultz v. Kixer, 2 Ire.
Eq. 538, cited and approved.

This case came on to be heard upon exceptions to the master's report,
which exceptions are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the Court.

The bill was filed in the Court of Equity for the County of Caswell by
Robert Love, Marmaduke Kimbrough and his wile Sarah, Benjamin D. Purley
and his wife Margaret, Samuel Love and his wife Mary and Martha Love by
her father and next friend, Samuel Love, against John C. Love, executor
of John Love, deceased, and John McKissack and his wife Elizabeth
Elmira, in which the plaintiff claimed as legatee under the will of the
said John Love and prayed for an account from the executor and the
payment of their respective legacies. The defendant John C. Love filed
his answer, and thereupon an order was made that the master should take
an account between the parties, which was accordingly done; and upon the
coming in of his report, exceptions thereto were filed by the plaintiff
and the cause was transmitted to

Love vs Love Page 202
this Court. The case made by the bill and answer, so far as is necessary
to a proper understanding of the report and the exceptions thereto, is
as follows. John Love died in the year 1844 having previously made and
published his will, wherein, among other bequests, he bequeathed as
follows,

6th I give to my daughter Elizabeth Elmira McKissack, a negro girl
named Beck, to her and her heirs.

7th, I give to my son John C. Love a woman named Lyn and all her
increase except a girl named Thene.

8th, It is my will that if I do not sell Thene my son John C. Love have
her to him and to his heirs, &c. My will is that my stock of horses,
half of my cows, wagon, sheep and hogs be sold, my just debts paid out
of the said money, and the balance to be divided between my four
children, namely, Robert, Sarah, Mary and Elizabeth ; all the balance of
my estate, viz. stock that is not mentioned above, also my household and
kitchen furniture I give to my son John C. Love and his heirs, &c."

John C. Love was appointed executor, and, after probate of the will, was
duly qualified and took upon himself the burden of its administration.
The bill charged that the girl Beck given to Elizabeth E. McKissack had
a child named Sally, born in the testator's life time, which did not
pass under the will and for which the executor was bound to account, and
had failed to do so ; that the testator left, as part of his personal
estate, a number of horses, stock of cattle, hogs and sheep, an ox cart,
a quantity of provisions, and many articles raised on the farm, for
which the executor had also failed to account; and that he had likewise
neglected and refused to account for the children of Lyn born in the
testator's life time, as it was alleged that he was bound to do. The
executor in his answer stated, that he was, and had at all times been,
ready to account with the plaintiff for every part of his testator's
estate to which they were entitled ; that he had sold the horses and
half the cattle and other stock,and returned

Love v. Love. Page 203
an account of the rules thereof to the proper Court; that the ox cart
was his own property, that half the cattle and other live stock was
given him by the will, and that he claimed all the crop and provisions
on hand at the testator's death, by virtue of a contract made with the
testator in his life time, to the effect that if he would live with the
testator and manage his business, he, the defendant, should have all
that he could make, after supporting the family, and that he had fully
complied with said contract in every particular. He admitted that he had
children of Lyn. born before the death of the testator, in his
possession, claiming them as his own, under a bequest in his testator's
will and he utterly denied the right of the plaintiff to them or any
part of them. As to the child Sally, alleged to have been born of the
woman Beck before the death of the testator, he answered " that he had
understood and had no reason to disbelieve, though he did not know of
his own knowledge and therefore did not admit, that negro woman Beck,
given in the will to Elizabeth McKissack, had a child named Sally,born
before the death of the testator; and he further stated, that the said
Elizabeth had been living in Tennessee for a great number of years,
claiming and using the negroes as her own, and he had been advised,
that, by the laws of that State, he could not recover, if there were any
child of the said Beck; and he stated further, that he believed, that,
if he had attempted to recover, it would have been attended with great
expense to the estate—probably more than the value of the negro, if
he had been successful." The report of the master exhibited a statement
of what was in the hands of the executor after charging him with all
which the master thought he ought to be charged with, and allowing all
proper disbursements ; and it also exhibited the testimony, upon which
the charges were made and the disbursements allowed, among which
testimony was a copy of the account of sales returned to the County
Court by the executor.

Love vs. Love. Page 204
The exceptions filed by the plaintiff to the report were as
follows:—

1. The master has submitted no evidence of the amount of the estate,
which came to the defendant, John C Love's hands, nor does he show of
what sums. how raised or from what sources he made the aggregate amount
with which he has charged the said defendant.

2. The master has credited the defendant with $39 paid attorneys,
without evidence that the service of counsel was required in matters
pertinent and proper for the estate.

3. The master has failed to charge defendant with the stock of
provisions on hand at testator's death, or with any of the proceeds of
articles raised on the farm.

4. The defendant is not charged with the horses on hand, and permits the
defendant to retain them as his own ; that he has omitted to charge the
defendant with half of all the stock, other than cows.

5. That the master has failed to charge the defendant with the children
of the woman Lyn, and has taken upon himself to construe the will, and
gives to defendant all Lyn's children, and half of all the stock, other
than cows, which construction is erroneous and against law.

6. That defendant is not charged with an ox cart.

7. That the report is not sustained by the evidence, and is against the
testimony in the cause.

8. The defendant is not charged with the child of woman Beck, which was
born before the making of the will.

Morehead and Norwood, for the plaintiff.
Kerr and E. G. Reade, for the defendants.

Battle, J. We have examined the testimony taken by the master, and must
over-rule the first exception, because the plaintiffs have produced no
evidence to show that the amount of the estate, which came to the hands

Love vs. Love Page 205
of the executor, was different from what it appeared to be from his
answer and account of sales. The master was therefore justified in
stating that to be the true amount.

The 2nd exception we must over-rule, also, because the plaintiff has
failed to show that the charges were improper or unreasonable.

The 3d exception is over-ruled, because the testimony satisfies us that
the executor was entitled to all the articles mentioned in the
exception, under a contract made with his testator in his life-time, and
which was fully performed on his part by the executor.

The 4th exception is also over-ruled, because it appears from the
testimony that the testator had, at the time of his death, but two
horses, and they were sold as a part of his estate by the executor; as
were also one half of the cows and other stock. The other half, the
executor is entitled to upon a proper construction of the will. That is
certainly the grammatical construction, and according to the case of
Jones v. Posten, 1 Ired. Rep. 171, it must prevail, unless a contrary
intent plainly appears, which is not the case here. Besides this, it
appears from the testimony that the defendant was entitled to one half
of the stock, other than horses under contract with the testator.

The 5th exception cannot be sustained and must also be over- ruled. It
is well settled that a bequest of a negro woman and her increase,
without any explanatory words, will not entitle the legatee to a child
of the woman, born before the testator's death. But if there be any
expression in the will, showing an intention on the part of the
testator, that the child, so born, shall be included in the gift of the
mother then the legatee .shall take it Stultz v. Riser, 2 Ired. Eq. Rep.
538. Here the exception of the girl Thene from the bequest of the woman
Lyn and all her increase, shows plainly the intention of the testator,
that the legatee should take all the children,

Love vs. Love Page 206
which Lyn then had, except Thene. And this intention is still more
plainly manifested by the testator's giving, in a subsequent clause of
his will, the girl Thene to the same legatee, in the event of his
failing to sell her. The construction placed upon the will by the master
was therefore right in point of law and must be sustained.

The 6th exception must be over-ruled, because the ox cart, to which it
relates, is proven to have been bought by the executor himself and was
no part of the testator's estate.

The 7th exception is over-ruled because it is too general and
indefinite.

The 8th exception has raised rather more difficulty than we have found
with the others. The allegation in the bill, that the woman Beck,given
to Elizabeth McKissack, had a child born in the testator's life time, is
neither expressly admitted nor denied in the answer, and there is no
testimony taken upon that point. We cannot, therefore, declare the Ike
t, that there was such a child born as above stated, yet we think that
it is manifest from the answer, that the executor believes the fact to
be so, and we suspect that it is so. Under these circumstances, the
plaintiff may, if he choose, have it referred to the master to inquire
whether the woman Beck had a child named Sally born before the
testator's death and living at the time of his death ; and if so what
was her value at that time ; and whether the share of the estate, to
which Elizabeth McKissack is entitled under the will, be sufficient to
answer for the value of Sally, or of any and what part of such value.

Per Curiam. Decree accordingly.

Death	May 1785
Marriage		Living

Spouse	Living
Child	Vincent Lea Morton (1823 - 1902)