New Amsterdam Casualty Company, and Cross-Appellant v. Gladys N. Waller, and Cross-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge.
In this action by a creditor to reach real estate improved by expenditures of the debtor’s money but held in the name of the debtor’s wife, the District Court held, in the absence of an affirmative intention to defraud the creditor, the action was not controlled by the North Carolina 3-year statute of limitations applicable to actions founded upon fraud. 1 Since expenditure of the debtor’s funds to improve the wife’s property was fraudulent in law, whether the parties consciously realized the fraudulent nature of their acts, we think the 3-year statute should have…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Teachey v. . GurleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Bowen v. DardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Reynolds v. Whitin MacH. WorksCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
- Osborne v. . WilkesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Ewbank v. . LymanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- New Amsterdam Casualty Company, and Cross-Appellant v. Gladys N. Waller, and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1963
- Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Holley v. Coggin Pontiac, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- X-IT Products, L.L.C. v. Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2001
- United States v. Franklin National BankDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1973
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.