Smith v. . Washington
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Johnston. The bill charged that the Plaintiff’s intestate being surety for one Robert H. Helme to a large amount, and Helme being anxious to indemnify him, conveyed to the Plaintiff, in trust for the intestate, by deed dated November 17th, 1825, a decree for a sum of money which be, Helme, had obtained against the firm of John Williams and Company, of which he was a member.
Read the full summary
From Johnston. The bill charged that the Plaintiff’s intestate being surety for one Robert H. Helme to a large amount, and Helme being anxious to indemnify him, conveyed to the Plaintiff, in trust for the intestate, by deed dated November 17th, 1825, a decree for a sum of money which be, Helme, had obtained against the firm of John Williams and Company, of which he was a member. The deed was filed as an exhibit and appeared to have been proved on the 25th of August, 1826, and recorded the 2d of September following. The Defendants claimed under an assignment of the same decree made by Helme to…
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Judge.
—The object in registering mortgages and deeds of trust is, to guard against fraud and deception, by giving notice of the real situation of the debtor to all who may be interested in knowing it. To that end the Legislature have declared, that no mortgage or deed in trust for any estate, whether real or persona shall be good against creditors or purchasers, proved and registered within six months. (Jlct of 1820, Revisal ch. 1037.)
The obvious intent of the act, so far as creditors and purchasers are concerned, is to give publicity to conveyances which transfer the title of property…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Holden v. . StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895